Login
Many things have changed since 2018, such as the names of the companies in the Fortune 100 list. But one aspect of that vaunted list that hasn’t shifted much since is that very few of these companies list any security professionals within their top executive ranks.
The next time you receive a breach notification letter that invariably says a company you trusted places a top priority on customer security and privacy, consider this: Only five of the Fortune 100 companies currently list a security professional in the executive leadership pages of their websites. This is largely unchanged from five of the Fortune 100 in 2018, the last time KrebsOnSecurity performed this analysis.
A review of the executives pages published by the 2022 list of Fortune 100 companies found only five — BestBuy, Cigna, Coca-Cola, Disney and Walmart — that listed a Chief Security Officer (CSO) or Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) in their highest corporate ranks.
One-third of last year’s Fortune 100 companies included a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) in their executive stables; 40 listed Chief Information Officer (CIO) roles, but just 21 included a Chief Risk Officer (CRO).
As I noted in 2018, this is not to say that 95 percent of the Fortune 100 companies don’t have a CISO or CSO in their employ: A review of LinkedIn suggests that most of them in fact do have people in those roles, and experts say some of the largest multinational companies will have multiple people in these positions.
But it is interesting to note which executive positions the top companies deem worth publishing in their executive leadership pages. For example, 88 percent listed a Director of Human Resources (or “Chief People Officer”), and 37 out of 100 included a Chief Marketing Officer.
Not that these roles are somehow more or less important than that of a CISO/CSO within the organization. Nor is the average pay hugely different among all these roles. Yet, considering how much marketing (think consumer/customer data) and human resources (think employee personal/financial data) are impacted by your average data breach, it’s somewhat remarkable that more companies don’t list their chief security personnel among their top ranks.
One likely explanation as to why a great many companies still don’t include their security leaders within their highest echelons is that these employees do not report directly to the company’s CEO, board of directors, or Chief Risk Officer.
The CSO or CISO position traditionally has reported to an executive in a technical role, such as the CTO or CIO. But workforce experts say placing the CISO/CSO on unequal footing with the organization’s top leaders makes it more likely that cybersecurity and risk concerns will take a backseat to initiatives designed to increase productivity and generally grow the business.
“Separation of duties is a fundamental concept of security, whether we’re talking about cyber threats, employee fraud, or physical theft,” said Tari Schreider, an analyst with Datos Insights. “But that critical separation is violated every day with the CISO or CSO reporting to the heads of technology.”
IANS, an organization geared toward CISOs/CSOs and their teams, surveyed more than 500 organizations last year and found roughly 65 percent of CISOs still report to a technical leader, such as the CTO or CIO: IANS found 46 percent of CISOs reported to a CIO, with 15 percent reporting directly to a CTO.
A survey last year by IANS found 65 percent of CISOs report to a tech function within organizations, such as the CTO or CIO. Image: IANS Research.
Schreider said one big reason many CISOs and CSOs aren’t listed in corporate executive biographies at major companies is that these positions often do not enjoy the same legal and insurance protections afforded to other officers within the company.
Typically, larger companies will purchase a “Directors and Officers” liability policy that covers legal expenses should one of the organization’s top executives find themselves dragged into court over some business failing on the part of their employer. But organizations that do not offer this coverage to their security leaders are unlikely to list those positions in their highest ranks, Schreider said.
“It’s frankly shocking,” Schreider said, upon hearing that only four of the Fortune 100 listed any security personnel in their top executive hierarchies. “If the company isn’t going to give them legal cover, then why give them the responsibility for security? Especially when CISOs and CSOs shouldn’t own the risk, yet the majority of them carry the mantle of responsibility and they tend to be scapegoats” when the organization eventually gets hacked, he said.
Schreider said while Datos Insights focuses mostly on the financial and insurance industries, a recent Datos survey echoes the IANS findings from last year. Datos surveyed 25 of the largest financial institutions by asset size (two of which are no longer in existence), and found just 22 percent of CSOs/CISOs reported to the CEO. A majority — 65 percent — had their CSOs/CISOs reporting to either a CTO or CIO.
“I’ve looked at these types of statistics for years and they’ve never really changed that much,” Schreider said. “The CISO or CSO is in the purview of the technical stack from a management perspective. Right, wrong or indifferent, that’s what’s happening.”
Earlier this year, IT consulting firm Accenture released results from surveying more than 3,000 respondents from 15 industries across 14 countries about their security maturity levels. Accenture found that only about one-third of the organizations they surveyed had enough security maturity under their belts to have integrated security into virtually every aspect of their businesses — and this includes having CISOs or CSOs report to someone in charge of overseeing risk for the business as a whole.
Not surprisingly, Accenture also found that only a third of respondents considered cybersecurity risk “to a great extent” when evaluating overall enterprise risk.
“This highlights there is still some way to go to make cybersecurity a proactive, strategic necessity within the business,” the report concluded.
One way of depicting the different stages of security maturity.
A spreadsheet tracking the prevalence of security leaders on the executive pages of the 2022 Fortune 100 firms is available here.
Update, July 23: Somehow overlooked Disney’s CSO listed on their leadership page. The story copy above has been updated to reflect that.
Google said this week it is expanding the types of data people can ask to have removed from search results, to include personal contact information like your phone number, email address or physical address. The move comes just months after Google rolled out a new policy enabling people under the age of 18 (or a parent/guardian) to request removal of their images from Google search results.
Google has for years accepted requests to remove certain sensitive data such as bank account or credit card numbers from search results. In a blog post on Wednesday, Google’s Michelle Chang wrote that the company’s expanded policy now allows for the removal of additional information that may pose a risk for identity theft, such as confidential log-in credentials, email addresses and phone numbers when it appears in Search results.
“When we receive removal requests, we will evaluate all content on the web page to ensure that we’re not limiting the availability of other information that is broadly useful, for instance in news articles,” Chang wrote. “We’ll also evaluate if the content appears as part of the public record on the sites of government or official sources. In such cases, we won’t make removals.”
While Google’s removal of a search result from its index will do nothing to remove the offending content from the site that is hosting it, getting a link decoupled from Google search results is going to make the content at that link far less visible. According to recent estimates, Google enjoys somewhere near 90 percent market share in search engine usage.
KrebsOnSecurity decided to test this expanded policy with what would appear to be a no-brainer request: I asked Google to remove search result for BriansClub, one of the largest (if not THE largest) cybercrime stores for selling stolen payment card data.
BriansClub has long abused my name and likeness to pimp its wares on the hacking forums. Its homepage includes a copy of my credit report, Social Security card, phone bill, and a fake but otherwise official looking government ID card.
The login page for perhaps the most bustling cybercrime store for stolen payment card data.
Briansclub updated its homepage with this information in 2019, after it got massively hacked and a copy of its customer database was shared with this author. The leaked data — which included 26 million credit and debit card records taken from hacked online and brick-and-mortar retailers — was ultimately shared with dozens of financial institutions.
TechCrunch writes that the policy expansion comes six months after Google started allowing people under 18 or their parents request to delete their photos from search results. To do so, users need to specify that they want Google to remove “Imagery of an individual currently under the age of 18” and provide some personal information, the image URLs and search queries that would surface the results. Google also lets you submit requests to remove non-consensual explicit or intimate personal images from Google, along with involuntary fake pornography, TechCrunch notes.
This post will be updated in the event Google responds one way or the other, but that may take a while: Google’s automated response said: “Due to the preventative measures being taken for our support specialists in light of COVID-19, it may take longer than usual to respond to your support request. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, and we’ll send you a reply as soon as we can.”
Update: 10:30 p.m. ET: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that people needed to show explicit or implicit threats regarding requests to remove information like one’s phone number, address or email address from a search result. A spokesperson for Google said “there is no requirement that we find the content to be harmful or shared in a malicious way.”
Over the past week we have seen a considerable body of work focusing on DarkSide, the ransomware responsible for the recent gas pipeline shutdown. Many of the excellent technical write-ups will detail how it operates an affiliate model that supports others to be involved within the ransomware business model (in addition to the developers). While this may not be a new phenomenon, this model is actively deployed by many groups with great effect. Herein is the crux of the challenge: while the attention may be on DarkSide ransomware, the harsh reality is that equal concern should be placed at Ryuk, or REVIL, or Babuk, or Cuba, etc. These, and other groups and their affiliates, exploit common entry vectors and, in many cases, the tools we see being used to move within an environment are the same. While this technical paper covers DarkSide in more detail, we must stress the importance of implementing best practices in securing/monitoring your network. These additional publications can guide you in doing so:
As mentioned earlier, DarkSide is a Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) that offers high returns for penetration-testers that are willing to provide access to networks and distribute/execute the ransomware. DarkSide is an example of a RaaS whereby they actively invest in development of the code, affiliates, and new features. Alongside their threat to leak data, they have a separate option for recovery companies to negotiate, are willing to engage with the media, and are willing to carry out a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack against victims. Those victims who do pay a ransom receive an alert from DarkSide on companies that are on the stock exchange who are breached, in return for their payment. Potential legal issues abound, not to mention ethical concerns, but this information could certainly provide an advantage in short selling when the news breaks.
The group behind DarkSide are also particularly active. Using MVISION Insights we can identify the prevalence of targets. This map clearly illustrates that the most targeted geography is clearly the United States (at the time of writing). Further, the sectors primarily targeted are Legal Services, Wholesale, and Manufacturing, followed by the Oil, Gas and Chemical sectors.
McAfee’s market leading EPP solution covers DarkSide ransomware with an array of early prevention and detection techniques.
Customers using MVISION Insights will find a threat-profile on this ransomware family that is updated when new and relevant information becomes available.
MVISION EDR includes detections on many of the behaviors used in the attack including privilege escalation, malicious PowerShell and CobaltStrike beacons, and visibility of discovery commands, command and control, and other tactics along the attack chain. We have EDR telemetry indicating early detection before the detonation of the Ransomware payload.
ENS TP provides coverage against known indicators in the latest signature set. Updates on new indicators are pushed through GTI.
ENS ATP provides behavioral content focusing on proactively detecting the threat while also delivering known IoCs for both online and offline detections.
ENS ATP adds two (2) additional layers of protection thanks to JTI rules that provide attack surface reduction for generic ransomware behaviors and RealProtect (static and dynamic) with ML models targeting ransomware threats.
For the latest mitigation guidance, please review:
https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content&id=KB93354&locale=en_US
The RaaS platform offers the affiliate the option to build either a Windows or Unix version of the ransomware. Depending on what is needed, we observe that affiliates are using different techniques to circumvent detection, by masquerading the generated Windows binaries of DarkSide. Using several packers or signing the binary with a certificate are some of the techniques used to do so.
As peers in our industry have described, we also observed campaigns where the affiliates and their hacking crew used several ways to gain initial access to their victim’s network.
The configuration of the ransomware contains several options to enable or disable system processes, but also the above part where it states which processes should not be killed.
As mentioned before, a lot of the current Windows samples in the wild are the 1.8 version of DarkSide, others are the 2.1.2.3 version. In a chat one of the actors revealed that a V3 version will be released soon.
On March 23rd, 2021, on XSS, one of the DarkSide spokespersons announced an update of DarkSide as a PowerShell version and a major upgrade of the Linux variant:
In the current samples we observe, we do see the PowerShell component that is used to delete the Volume Shadow copies, for example.
Tools observed:
Before distributing the ransomware around the network using tools like PsExec and PowerShell, data was exfiltrated to Cloud Services that would later be used on the DarkSide Leak page for extortion purposes. Zipping the data, using Rclone or WinSCP are some of the examples observed.
While a lot of good and in-depth analyses are written by our peers, one thing worth noting is that when running DarkSide, the encryption process is fast. It is one of the areas the actors brag about on the same forum and do a comparison to convince affiliates to join their program:
DarkSide, like Babuk ransomware, has a Linux version. Both target *nix systems but in particular VMWare ESXi servers and storage/NAS. Storage/NAS is critical for many companies, but how many of you are running a virtual desktop, hosted on a ESXi server?
Darkside wrote a Linux variant that supports the encryption of ESXI server versions 5.0 – 7.1 as well as NAS technology from Synology. They state that other NAS/backup technologies will be supported soon.
In the code we clearly observe this support:
Also, the configuration of the Linux version shows it is clearly looking for Virtual Disk/memory kind of files:
Although the adversary recently claimed to vote for targets, the attacks are ongoing with packed and signed samples observed as recently as today (May 12, 2021):
Recently the Ransomware Task Force, a partnership McAfee is proud to be a part of, released a detailed paper on how ransomware attacks are occurring and how countermeasures should be taken. As many of us have published, presented on, and released research upon, it is time to act. Please follow the links included within this blog to apply the broader advice about applying available protection and detection in your environment against such attacks.
Data Encrypted for Impact – T1486
Inhibit System Recovery – T1490
Valid Accounts – T1078
PowerShell – T1059.001
Service Execution – T1569.002
Account Manipulation – T1098
Dynamic-link Library Injection – T1055.001
Account Discovery – T1087
Bypass User Access Control – T1548.002
File Permissions Modification – T1222
System Information Discovery – T1082
Process Discovery – T1057
Screen Capture – T1113
Compile After Delivery – T1027.004
Credentials in Registry – T1552.002
Obfuscated Files or Information – T1027
Shared Modules – T1129
Windows Management Instrumentation – T1047
Exploit Public-Facing Application – T1190
Phishing – T1566
External Remote Services – T1133
Multi-hop Proxy – T1090.003
Exploitation for Privilege Escalation – T1068
Application Layer Protocol – T1071
Bypass User Account Control – T1548.002
Commonly Used Port – T1043
Compile After Delivery – T1500
Credentials from Password Stores – T1555
Credentials from Web Browsers – T1555.003
Credentials in Registry – T1214
Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information – T1140
Disable or Modify Tools – T1562.001
Domain Account – T1087.002
Domain Groups – T1069.002
Domain Trust Discovery – T1482
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol – T1048
Exfiltration to Cloud Storage – T1567.002
File and Directory Discovery – T1083
Gather Victim Network Information – T1590
Ingress Tool Transfer – T1105
Linux and Mac File and Directory Permissions Modification – T1222.002
Masquerading – T1036
Process Injection – T1055
Remote System Discovery – T1018
Scheduled Task/Job – T1053
Service Stop – T1489
System Network Configuration Discovery – T1016
System Services – T1569
Taint Shared Content – T1080
Unix Shell – T1059.004
The post DarkSide Ransomware Victims Sold Short appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Today, Microsoft released a highly critical vulnerability (CVE-2021-31166) in its web server http.sys. This product is a Windows-only HTTP server which can be run standalone or in conjunction with IIS (Internet Information Services) and is used to broker internet traffic via HTTP network requests. The vulnerability is very similar to CVE-2015-1635, another Microsoft vulnerability in the HTTP network stack reported in 2015.
With a CVSS score of 9.8, the vulnerability announced has the potential to be both directly impactful and is also exceptionally simple to exploit, leading to a remote and unauthenticated denial-of-service (Blue Screen of Death) for affected products.
The issue is due to Windows improperly tracking pointers while processing objects in network packets containing HTTP requests. As HTTP.SYS is implemented as a kernel driver, exploitation of this bug will result in at least a Blue Screen of Death (BSoD), and in the worst-case scenario, remote code execution, which could be wormable. While this vulnerability is exceptional in terms of potential impact and ease of exploitation, it remains to be seen whether effective code execution will be achieved. Furthermore, this vulnerability only affects the latest versions of Windows 10 and Windows Server (2004 and 20H2), meaning that the exposure for internet-facing enterprise servers is fairly limited, as many of these systems run Long Term Servicing Channel (LTSC) versions, such as Windows Server 2016 and 2019, which are not susceptible to this flaw.
At the time of this writing, we are unaware of any “in-the-wild” exploitation for CVE-2021-31166 but will continue to monitor the threat landscape and provide relevant updates. We urge Windows users to apply the patch immediately wherever possible, giving special attention to externally facing devices that could be compromised from the internet. For those who are unable to apply Microsoft’s update, we are providing a “virtual patch” in the form of a network IPS signature that can be used to detect and prevent exploitation attempts for this vulnerability.
McAfee Network Security Platform (NSP) Protection
Sigset Version: 10.8.21.2
Attack ID: 0x4528f000
Attack Name: HTTP: Microsoft HTTP Protocol Stack Remote Code Execution Vulnerability (CVE-2021-31166)
McAfee Knowledge Base Article KB94510:
https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content&id=KB94510
The post Major HTTP Vulnerability in Windows Could Lead to Wormable Exploit appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Countries all over the world are racing to achieve so-called herd immunity against COVID-19 by vaccinating their populations. From the initial lockdown to the cancellation of events and the prohibition of business travel, to the reopening of restaurants, and relaxation of COVID restrictions on outdoor gatherings, the vaccine rollout has played a critical role in staving off another wave of infections and restoring some degree of normalcy. However, a new and troubling phenomenon is that consumers are buying COVID-19 vaccines on the black market due to the increased demand around the world. As a result, illegal COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination records are in high demand on darknet marketplaces.
The impact on society is that the proliferation of fraudulent test results and counterfeit COVID-19 vaccine records pose a serious threat to public health and spur the underground economy. Individuals undoubtedly long to return to their pre-pandemic routines and the freedom of travel and behavior denied them over the last year. However, the purchase of false COVID-19 test certifications or vaccination cards to board aircraft, attend an event or enter a country endangers themselves, even if they are asymptomatic. It also threatens the lives of other people in their own communities and around the world. Aside from the collective damage to global health, darknet marketplace transactions encourage the supply of illicit goods and services. The underground economy cycle continues as demand creates inventory, which in turn creates supply. In addition to selling COVID-19 vaccines, vaccination cards, and fake test results, cybercriminals can also benefit by reselling the names, dates of birth, home addresses, contact details, and other personally indefinable information of their customers.
As we commemorate the one-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, at least 184 countries and territories worldwide have started their vaccination rollouts.[1] The United States is vaccinating Americans at an unprecedented rate. As of May 2021, more than 105 million Americans had been fully vaccinated. The growing demand has made COVID-19 vaccines the new “liquid gold” in the pandemic era.
However, following vaccination success, COVID-19 related cybercrime has increased. COVID-19 vaccines are currently available on at least a dozen darknet marketplaces. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines (and we can only speculate as to whether they are genuine or a form of liquid “fool’s gold”) can be purchased for as little as $500 per dose from top-selling vendors. These sellers use various channels, such as Wickr, Telegram, WhatsApp and Gmail, for advertising and communications. Darknet listings associated with alleged Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines are selling for $600 to $2,500. Prospective buyers can receive the product within 2 to 10 days. Some of these supposed COVID-19 vaccines are imported from the United States, while others are packed in the United Kingdom and shipped to every country in the world, according to the underground advertisement.
Figure 1: Dark web marketplace offering COVID-19 vaccines
Figure 2: Dark web marketplace offering COVID-19 vaccines
A vendor sells 10 doses of what they claim to be Moderna COVID-29 vaccines for $2,000. According to the advertisement, the product is available to ship to the United Kingdom and worldwide.
Figure 3: Dark web marketplace offering COVID-19 vaccines
Besides what are claimed to be COVID-19 vaccines, cybercriminals offer antibody home test kits for $152 (again, we do not know whether they are genuine or not). According to the advertisement, there are various shipping options available. It costs $41 for ‘stealth’ shipping to the United States, $10.38 to ship to the United Kingdom, and $20 to mail the vaccines internationally.
Figure 4: Dark web marketplace offering COVID-19 test kits
On the darknet marketplaces, the sales of counterfeit COVID-19 test results and vaccination certificates began to outnumber the COVID vaccine offerings in mid-April. This shift is most likely because COVID-19 vaccines are now readily available for those who want them. People can buy and show these certificates without being vaccinated. A growing number of colleges will require students to have received a COVID-19 vaccine before returning to in-person classes by this fall.[2] Soon, COVID-19 vaccination proof is likely to become a requirement of some type of “passport” to board a plane or enter major events and venues.
The growing demand for proof of vaccination is driving an illicit economy for fake vaccination and test certificates. Opportunistic cybercriminals capitalize on public interest in obtaining a COVID-19 immunity passport, particularly for those who oppose COVID-19 vaccines or test positive for COVID-19 but want to return to school or work, resume travel or attend a public event. Counterfeit negative COVID-19 test results and COVID-19 vaccination cards are available for sale at various darknet marketplaces. Fake CDC-issued vaccination cards are available for $50. One vendor offers counterfeit German COVID-19 certificates for $23.35. Vaccination cards with customized information, such as “verified” batch or lot numbers for particular dates and “valid” medical and hospital information, are also available for purchase.
One darknet marketplace vendor offers to sell a digital copy of the COVID-19 vaccination card with detailed printing instructions for $50.
Figure 5: Dark web marketplace offering COVID-19 vaccination cards
One vendor sells CDC vaccination cards for $1,200 and $1,500, as seen in the following screenshot. These cards, according to the advertisement, can be personalized with details such as the prospective buyer’s name and medical information.
Figure 6: Dark web marketplace offering COVID-19 vaccination cards
Other darknet marketplace vendors offer fake CDC-issued COVID-19 vaccination card packages for $1,200 to $2,500. The package contains a PDF file that buyers can type and print, as well as personalized vaccination cards with “real” lot numbers, according to the advertisement. Prospective buyers can pay $1,200 for blank cards or $1,500 for custom-made cards with valid batch numbers, medical and hospital details.
Figure 7: Dark web marketplace offering COVID-19 vaccination cards
One vendor offers counterfeit negative COVID-19 test results and vaccine passports to potential buyers.
Figure 8: Dark web marketplace offering negative COVID-19 test results and vaccination cards
A seller on another dark web market sells five counterfeit German COVID-19 certificates for $23.35. According to the advertisement below, the product is available for shipping to Germany and the rest of the world.
Figure 9: Dark web marketplace offering German COVID-19 vaccination certificates
The proliferation of fraudulent test results and counterfeit COVID-19 vaccine records on darknet marketplaces poses a significant threat to global health while fueling the underground economy. While an increasing number of countries begin to roll out COVID-19 vaccines and proof of vaccination, questionable COVID vaccines and fake proofs are emerging on the underground market. With the EU and other jurisdictions opening their borders to those who have received vaccinations, individuals will be tempted to obtain false vaccination documents in their drive to a return to pre-pandemic normalcy that includes summer travel and precious time with missed loved ones. Those who buy questionable COVID-19 vaccines or forged vaccination certificates risk their own lives and the lives of others. Apart from the harm to global health, making payments to darknet marketplaces promotes the growth of illegal products and services. The cycle of the underground economy continues as demand generates inventory, which generates supply. These are the unintended consequences of an effective global COVID vaccine rollout.
[1] https[:]//www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/health/global-covid-vaccinations/
[2] https[:]//www.npr.org/2021/04/11/984787779/should-colleges-require-covid-19-vaccines-for-fall-more-campuses-are-saying-yes
The post “Fool’s Gold”: Questionable Vaccines, Bogus Results, and Forged Cards appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Email is one of the primary ways of communication in the modern world. We use email to receive notifications about our online shopping, financial transaction, credit card e-statements, one-time passwords to authenticate registration processes, application for jobs, auditions, school admissions and many other purposes. Since many people around the globe depend on electronic mail to communicate, phishing emails are an attack method favored by cyber criminals.
In this type of attack, cyber criminals design emails to look convincing and send them to targeted people. The sender pretends to be someone the potential victim knows, someone who can be trusted, like a friend, or close contact, or the very bank where they save their income, or even the social media platform where they might have an account. As soon as they click on any malicious files or links embedded within these emails, they may land in a compromised situation.
In this write up, I will focus on things to look at while hunting threats in phishing emails.
Header analysis:
An email is divided into three parts: header, body, and attachment. The header part keeps the routing information of the email. It may contain other information like content type, from, to, delivery date, sender origin, mail server, and the actual email address used to send/receive the email.
Important headers
Return- Path:
The Return-path email address receives the delivery status information. To get undelivered emails, or any other bounced back messages, our emails’ server uses Return-Path. The recipient server uses this field to identify spoof emails. In this process, the recipient server retrieves all the permitted IPs related to the sender domain and matches with the sender IP. If it fails to provide any match, we can consider the email to be spam.
Received:
This field shows information related to all hops, through which the email was transferred. The last entry shows the initial address of the email sender.
Reply-To:
This field’s email address is used to receive the reply message. It can differ from the address in spoof emails.
Received-SPF:
SPF (Sender Policy Framework) helps to verify that messages appearing from a particular domain were sent from servers under control of the actual owner. If the value is Pass, then the email source is valid.
DKIM:
Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM) signs the outgoing email with an encrypted signature inside the headers and the recipient email server decrypts it, using a shared public key to check whether the message was changed in transit.
X-Headers:
These headers are known as experimental or extension headers. They are usually added by the recipient mailbox providers. Fields like X-FOSE-Spam and X-Spam-Score are used to identify spam emails.
Consider the following email message:
Figure1: Raw email header information
Based on the above information the email is suspected to be spoofed. We should put the extracted email IDs in the block list.
The email bodies of phishing emails we usually receive mostly target our trust, by having something faithful and reliable in their content. It is so personalized and seemingly genuine, that victim’s often take the bait. Let us see the example below and understand what actions should be taken in such a scenario.
Figure2: Phishing email related to COVID-19
In the above email, the spammer pretends to be a medical insurance service provider and this mail is regarding a health-plan payment invoice for COVID-19 insurance the victim has supposedly purchased recently.
Figure2: Phishing email related to COVID-19 (continued)
Moreover, if we look closely at the bottom of the email, we can see the message, ‘This email has been scanned by McAfee’. This makes the email appear believable, as well as trustworthy.
Now, if we hover the mouse pointer over the |SEE DETAILS| button, one OneDrive link will pop up. Rather than clicking on the link, we must copy it for execution separately.
Figure3: Downloaded html file after clicking on the OneDrive link.
To execute the above OneDrive link separately (hxxps://1drv[.]ms/u/s!Ajmzc7fpBw5lrzwfPwIkoZRelG4D), it would be preferable to load it inside an isolated environment. If you do not have such an environment available yourself, you can use an online browser service like Browserling.
After loading the link in the browser, you will notice that it downloads an html attachment. Clicking on the html file takes us to another webpage (hxxps://selimyildiz[.]com.tr/wp-includes/fonts/greec/xls/xls/open/index.htm).
Figure4: Fake Office 365 login page
The content of the site is a lookalike of an online Microsoft Excel document where it is asking for Office 365 login details to download it. Before doing anything here we need to check a few more things.
Figure5: WordPress admin panel of selimyildiz[.]com.tr
To further validate whether the webpage is genuine or not, I have shortened the URL to its domain level to load it. The domain leads to a WordPress login page which does not belong to Microsoft, further arousing suspicion.
Figure 6: whois information of selimyildiz[.]com.tr
As per the whois information This domain has not been registered by Microsoft and it resolves to the public IP 2.56.152.159 which is also not owned by Microsoft. The information clearly indicates that it is not a genuine website.
Figure7: Attempting to login with random credentials to validate the authentication
Now to check the behavior, I came back to the login page, enter some random credentials, and try to download the invoice. As expected, I was faced with a login failed error. Here on we can assume there might be two probable reasons for the login failure. Firstly, to make the victim believe that it is a genuine login page or, secondly, to confirm whether the typed password is correct, as the victim may have made a typing error.
Figure8: Fake invoice to lure the victim
Now that we know this is fake, what is next? To validate the authentication check I entered random credentials again and bingo! This time it redirects to a pdf invoice, which looks genuine by showing it belongs to some medical company. However, the sad part is if the victim falls under this trap then, by the time they realize that this is a fake invoice, their login credentials will be phished.
In email, users commonly share two types of documents as an attachment, Microsoft office documents or PDF files. These are often used in document-based malware campaigns. To exploit the targeted systems, attackers usually infect these documents using VBA or JavaScript and distribute them via (phishing) emails.
In the first section of this part, we will analyze a malicious Word document. This type of document contains malicious Visual Basic Application (VBA) code, known as macros. Sometimes, a macro triggers the moment a document is opened, but from Microsoft Office 2007 onwards, a macro cannot execute itself until and unless the user enables the macro content. To deal with such showstoppers, attackers utilize various social engineering methods, where the primary goal is to build trust with the victim so that they click on the ‘Enable Editing’ button without any second thought.
File Name: PR_Report.bin
Hash: e992ffe746b40d97baf56098e2110ff3978f8229ca333e87e24d1539cea7415c
Tools:
Step 1: Getting started with File properties
It is always good practice to get familiar with the properties before starting any file analysis. We can get the details using the ‘file’ command in Linux.
Step 2: Apply Yara rules
Yara is a tool to identify and classify malware. This tool is used to conduct signature-based detection against any file. Let us check a couple of premade Yara rules from Didier Stevens Suites.
Step 3: Dump the document contents using oledump.py
As we know, an OLE file contains streams of data. Oledump.py will help us to analyze those streams further to extract macros or objects out of it.
You may notice in the above figure that we can see two letters ‘M‘ and ‘O’ in stream 8, 9 and 15, respectively. Here ‘M’ indicates the stream might contain macro code and ‘O’ indicates an object.
Step 4: Extract the VB script in macros
Shell cmd.exe /c ping localhost -n 100 && start Environ(“Temp”) & “\6C.pif”, vbHide
Step 5: Extract file from the ole object.
It is clear that the document has an embedded file which can be extracted using the oleobj tool.
Step 6: Getting the static information from the extracted file.
Step 7: Behavior analysis
Setup a Windows 7 32-bit VM, change the file extension to ‘.exe’ and simply run Apate DNS and Windows Network Monitoring tool before execution.
Figure9: Command and Control domain’s DNS queries captured in Apate DNS
Figure10: Captured network traffic of 5C.exe while trying to communicate with the C2
Figure11: Registry changes captured in Process Monitor
We can summarize it as the Word document first ran a VBA macro, dropped and ran an embedded executable, created a new process, communicated with the C2 servers and made unauthorized Registry changes. This is enough information to consider the document as malicious. From this point, if we want, we can do more detailed analysis like debugging the executable or analyzing the process dump to learn more about the file behavior.
A PDF document can be defined as a collection of objects that describes how the pages should be displayed inside the file.
Usually, an attack vector uses email or other social engineering skills to lure the user to click or open the pdf document. The moment a user opens the pdf file it typically executes JavaScript in the background that may exploit the existing vulnerability that persist with the Adobe pdf reader or drop an executable as a payload that might perform the rest of the objectives.
A pdf file has four components. They are header, body, reference, and trailer.
File name: Report.pdf
Sha256: a7b423202d5879d1f9e47ae85ce255e3758c5c1e5b19fcd56691dab288a47b4c
Tools –
Step 1: Scan the pdf document with PDFiD
PDFiD is a part of the Didier Stevens Suite. It scans the pdf document with a list of strings, which helps you to identify the information like JavaScript, Embedded files, actions while opening the documents and the count of the occurrences of some specific strings inside the pdf file.
Step 2: Looking inside the Objects
We have now discovered that there is JavaScript present inside the pdf file so let us start from there. We will run pdf-parser.py to search the JavaScript indirect object.
Step 3: Extract the embedded file using peepdf.
Peepdf is a tool built in Python, which provides all the necessary components in one place that are required during PDF analysis.
Syntax: peepdf –i file_name.pdf
The syntax (-i) means enabling interaction mode.
To learn more, just type help with the topic and explore the options it displays.
Step 4: Behavior analysis
Now set up a windows 7 32-bit virtual machine and execute the file.
Figure12: Process Explorer displays processes created by virus.exe
Figure13: Process Monitor captured the system changes made by virus.exe
The results in Process Monitor show the file was dropped as zedeogm.exe. Later it modified the Windows firewall rule. Then it executed WinMail.exe, following which it started cmd.exe to execute ‘tmpd849fc4d.bat’ and exited the process.
At this point, we have collected enough evidence to treat the pdf file as malicious. We can also perform additional precautionary steps like binary debugging and memory forensics on the extracted IOCs to hunt for further threats
In this write-up, we have understood the purpose of email threat hunting, how it will help to take preventive actions against un-known threats. We have discovered the areas we should investigate for hunting threats. We learned how a malicious URL can be hidden inside an email body and its analysis to further see if it is malicious or not.
To stay protected:
The post Steps to Discover Hidden Threat from Phishing Email appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
In the working world, there’s a chance you’ve come across your fair share of team-building exercises and workshops. There’s one exercise that comes to mind that often results in worried, and uneasy faces during these seminars: The Trust Fall. This is where you fall backward with the expectation that your colleague will catch you before you hit the ground.
Whether you have been with an organization for many years or just started, the same “pit in stomach” feeling reverberates across bellies as people exchange nervous glances and weigh their odds against whomever they may be paired up with when The Trust Fall is announced. That feeling is doubt, and it isn’t fun. And the problem is, once doubt is introduced, it tends to stealthily expand in its always-on, silent, and transparent ways, either serving as an incessant top-of-mind presence or staying at bay only to rear its troubling head at an unexpected moment until it is addressed.
“I saw Chris drop his stapler once, will he drop me?” “I know Betsy is the Godmother to my children, but what if she sneezes as I’m falling?” “I just started at this company yesterday, I don’t trust anybody I don’t know!”
If you’re wondering what Trust Falls have to do with cybersecurity, we just need to take a deeper look at the concept of trust in its simplest definition. Trust is a concrete concept: it is either there or it is not. Trusting your colleagues is based on multiple parameters; will they be strong enough to catch me, do they look mature enough to take this seriously, how did they behave when the game was announced – trust is not easily won and can also be quickly lost.
This is a necessity in today’s enterprises as computing has moved from private data centers to most everything consumed as a service. There are endless choices to compare, contrast, and comprise a technology stack, but when organizations start leveraging outside infrastructure, tools, and solutions – the sense of trust in these solutions weakens, since integrity can be promised, but should never be assumed.
Examples of this are abundant. As we see organizations explore the concept of trust more and attempt to align practices with the reality of today’s security circumstances, we are seeing an increasing number of trust models being exploited via poor management. Intent and implementation are not enough against today’s threats.
So, my question to security operation center (SOC) staff, IT leaders, and the c-suite is: Do you have complete trust in your current security infrastructure?
In all honesty, can you with no doubt in your mind, say your organization’s data and computing are secure? Is there any area you are unsure about?
If you hesitated when responding, even if for just a moment, keep reading.
Putting guards up, constantly looking over your shoulder, always expecting the worst or for the other shoe to drop – these are not desirable feelings. As a security professional, these are the feelings that cause them to stock up on antacids, with them knowing they are the front-line defense keeping an organization secure and in turn, revenue flowing. For the CIO and CISO, the onus is daunting as they face the challenge to piece together fragmented and disparate infrastructure from a strategic standpoint to best serve the business in an efficient, transparent manner all while simultaneously maintaining compliance and data integrity.
While we want to believe that trust is an intrinsic trait – that we’re born bright-eyed and bushy-tailed ready to spout only the truth – we also unfortunately know the reality is not everybody has good intentions. We constantly see this unfold across the security industry where a company is breached, recognizing the flaw(s) that allowed the breach to occur, to then implement a solution to fix the issue. This break-fix cycle can result in always looking backwards and rushing around to fix yesterday’s problem to quickly get business functions up and running without looking at underlying problems or issues.
And no industry is immune. Hackers are coming after everything from Happy Hours and breakfast routines to our more personal and high-stakes data across the financial services and healthcare industries. They’re more strategic too, and we can only expect them to continue to evolve. Adversaries today are looking for “low-hanging fruit” targets to take advantage of trust models and move laterally within an organization – first finding an avenue to exploit and enter to later gain access to higher-value targets, data, and assets.
The rush to get business–as–usual back on track is made doubly difficult as business momentum doesn’t stop. Organizations are introducing new SaaS services, development teams are writing new code, and even software that you have already reviewed has new features rolled out. The wealth of personal and corporate cloud apps can lead to hasty decisions; increased sprawl of an organization’s tech stack as new tools and solutions are introduced; as well as new policies, updates, and procedures for staff to learn and execute. This can all compound into more time spent addressing and fixing the past with blinders on to the future and other vulnerabilities that may exist.
If this past pandemic-filled year has taught us anything, it is that plans do not always go according to plan.
Organizations that have traditionally leveraged a more piecemeal and solutions-based approach to security were blindsided as the work from home era was thrust upon them. From companies updating or adopting collaboration tools, sharing more data digitally, and opening access to external users to create greater efficiencies – the rule book was thrown out the window and malicious actors started looking at all the data being produced and shared like kids in a candy store.
The impact of these plans gone awry isn’t pretty and perhaps risk could have been mitigated by using a least or earned trust model as a strategic framework to ensure sound security posture. The ‘Zero Trust’ concept coined more than a decade ago outlining a model of restricting access and control across an organization’s infrastructure is only now getting increased attention.
The harsh reality is, cybercrime is up 300% since the pandemic began, according to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). At a time when bottom lines are more important than ever as businesses bounce back, our Hidden Cost of Cybercrime report adds that 35% of those surveyed said security incidents resulting in system downtime cost them between $100,000 and $500,000.
The correlation of a pandemic occurring and malicious actors taking advantage of weaknesses caused by it is crystal clear, leading to increased awareness. In its Responding to COVID-19: What We are Hearing From Legal and Compliance Leaders report, Gartner states that 52% of legal and compliance leaders are concerned about third-party cybersecurity risks since COVID-191. Knowing that the increased number of remote workers and their mobile (and potentially unmanaged) endpoints are leading to more breaches and that these breaches are increasingly costly, organizations need to get a handle on their existing architecture and shift from awareness to action, eliminating assumptions of who is safe or allowed access.
A Zero Trust mentality allows organizations to restrict and compartmentalize access and data manipulation while still maintaining optimal user experience and productivity levels. Guidelines such as those from the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) can provide a practical framework to explore and implement Zero Trust.
With hackers getting more sophisticated to impersonate and infiltrate networks via verified users, it is time to go back to the drawing board – starting at zero and assuming everything is a threat until proven otherwise. This is a mindset shift and strategy, not another tool or solution to plug in. It involves a recognition of the importance of context and control over security posture, which can only be attained with continuous assessment. It is also about acknowledging trust is about risk – and that while risk is sometimes necessary for growth, it cannot outweigh the reward, so must be strategically managed. This line of thinking must be carefully navigated as more and more enterprises seek to define and assign accountability and responsibility across infrastructure.
While the journey to Zero Trust isn’t the same for every organization, the imperative to adopt Zero Trust is, given our collective experiences throughout the last year and cybercrime poised to keep increasing. It is time to stop looking over shoulders and anticipating the worst, acting only in a reactive manner, and instead feel empowered to erase doubt when maintaining security and compliance across an organization.
To learn more and start the journey toward implementing a Zero Trust strategy, I encourage you explore McAfee’ Zero Trust Security hub.
Source: 1 Gartner Press Release, Gartner Says 52% of Legal & Compliance Leaders Are Concerned About Third-Party Cybersecurity Risk Since COVID-19, April 24, 2020. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-04-24-gartner-says-52-percent-of-legal-and-compliance-leaders-are-concerned-about-third-party-cybersecurity-risk-rince-covid-19 (URL can be added as a hyperlink in source title)
The post Trust Nobody, Not Even Yourself: Time to Take Zero Trust Seriously appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
The McAfee Advanced Threat Research team today published the McAfee Labs Threats Report: April 2021.
In this edition, we present new findings in our traditional threat statistical categories – as well as our usual malware, sectors, and vectors – imparted in a new, enhanced digital presentation that’s more easily consumed and interpreted.
Historically, our reports detailed the volume of key threats, such as “what is in the malware zoo.” The introduction of MVISION Insights in 2020 has since made it possible to track the prevalence of campaigns, as well as, their associated IoCs, and determine the in-field detections. This latest report incorporates not only the malware zoo but new analysis for what is being detected in the wild.
The Q3 and Q4 2020 findings include:
Additional Q3 and Q4 2020 content includes:
These new, insightful additions really make for a bumper report! We hope you find this new McAfee Labs threat report presentation and data valuable.
Don’t forget keep track of the latest campaigns and continuing threat coverage by visiting our McAfee COVID-19 Threats Dashboard and the MVISION Insights preview dashboard.
The post McAfee Labs Report Reveals Latest COVID-19 Threats and Malware Surges appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
“It’s alive! It’s alive!”
Even if you haven’t seen the 1931 film Frankenstein, you are more than likely familiar with the story of the “monster” created by Victor Frankenstein. You may associate this cry from its titular character with the image of what Victor conjured finally opening its eyes and slowly lurching off the table.
While amusing and entertaining, this ongoing trope has a flaw that has tainted most of our memories. The fact is, in Mary Shelley’s classic 1818 novel of the same name, Victor does not excitedly exclaim when that first forward lurch occurs – but rather runs away and hides.
That’s right – fear was the first instinct met when a human, Victor, created and powered a non-human entity. While a work of fiction, was this our first brush with the concept of Artificial Intelligence (AI)? We don’t necessarily align the year 1818 in our minds as a technologically booming era. We have certainly come a long way from shipbuilding patents equaling the heights of technology to the technology that empowers life and business today.
So why are so many of us still fearful like Victor when it comes to AI? Especially since, in its earnest efforts, most AI technology today is designed to better processes, outcomes, and experiences – not to mention ensure greater security and control. We constantly see doom-and-gloom headlines asking whether AI will replace human jobs or touting added expenses associated with implementation. There’s even an entire Wikipedia page devoted to the notion of an “AI Takeover.”
But the truth is, AI – and machine learning – technology has gotten to the point today where it is more of an anomaly if a company or business does not implement it in some form. It is so commonplace that many of us don’t even know it is there. From smart assistants to progressing the healthcare industry at a time where it needs all the efficiencies it can afford, AI is everywhere and the security industry is no stranger when it comes to benefitting from its advances as well.
Our company looks at AI as an enhancement not a replacement. We know AI can improve experiences, create greater efficiencies, and solve complex problems – but at the same time are realistic. We know that humans alone cannot possibly address and respond to the sheer amount of threats businesses face today. But we also know that machines and technology do not currently have the creativity, wit, and wisdom that humans possess.
This is an important factor in the cybersecurity industry. This realism and notion that AI is an enhancement aligns with the concepts and origins of AI itself.
Most AI we see today can be categorized as strong AI, or AGI – artificial general intelligence, and weak AI. The latter means that humans are involved in some facet of programming the technology, whereas with strong AI, technology is able to use algorithms to process, inform, and make decisions independent of human interaction. What we don’t talk about as much is artificial superintelligence (ASI), where technology gains advanced cognitive abilities that can match – or even surpass – a human.
ASI can be ideal for many industries, but we’re not quite there yet. Since most AI today is still in the strong AI stage, AKA the enhancement phase where humans are still needed to process and define what technology currently cannot: emotion. Machines cannot currently replace thinking like a threat actor – imagining scenarios that only humans experience, intuition, motive, and brain power can conjure.
Therefore, we need humans and machines working together as a team. Machines are able to keep pace with the number of emerging threats and help security operation center analysts manage a tremendous amount of data and convert it into actionable intelligence. But human skill is needed to prioritize threats based on context, insight, and consciousness that machines don’t have.
It is increasingly important to remember this as we see adversarial AI on the rise and threat actors use AI to infiltrate AI-powered solutions. With this increase, speed of response is crucial, which is where we see AI have the most impact across the cybersecurity industry when coupled with human strategy to reduce potential damage done to an organization.
We are far from the point where AI needs to invoke fear, but we have a responsibility to know the shortcomings of current AI alongside its benefits.
This open-minded outlook is critical as AI in its truest form is about intelligence – and we can always add to and grow intelligence. The concept of always-on learning levels the playing field for both humans and machines. We’re the same in this aspect in that the possibilities are endless based on what we both can conjure and create based on education, learning, and knowledge.
The post AI Is Alive! But Not Without Our Help appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
It is near-certain the need for security across the enterprise will never cease – only increase if year-over-year trends are any indication. We constantly see headlines with repetitive buzzwords and phrases calling attention to the complexity of today’s security operations center (SOC) with calls to action to reimagine and modernize the SOC. We’re no different here at McAfee in believing this to be true.
In order for this to happen, however, we need to update our thinking when it comes to the SOC.
Today’s SOC truly serves as an organization’s cybersecurity brain. Breaking it down, the brain and SOC are both the ultimate central nervous system and are extremely complex. While the brain fires neurons, connects synapses, and constantly communicates in order for the body to function, the SOC similarly works as a centralized system where people, processes, and technology must be in-sync to function. The unfortunate reality is though, SOC analysts and staff do not feel empowered to act in this manner. According to the 2021 SANS Cyber Threat Intelligence Report, respondents cited several reasons for not being able to implement cybersecurity holistically across their organization, including lack of trained staff, time, funding, management buy-in, technical capabilities, and more.
The technology that has the power to enable this synchronicity and further modernize enterprise security by taking SOC functionality to the next level is already here – Extended Detection and Response (XDR). It has the ability to provide prevention, detection, analysis, and response in a purposefully orchestrated and cooperative way, with its components operating as a whole. Think of it this way: XDR mimics the brain’s seamlessness in operation, with every element working toward the same goal of maintaining sound security posture across an entire organization.
Put another way, the human brain has approximately 100 trillion synapses, synchronizing and directing to make it possible to walk and chew bubble gum at the very same time with seemingly no effort on the human’s end. However, if one synapse misfires or becomes compromised due to an unknown element – you might end up on the ground.
Similarly, we’re already seeing many enterprises falter, trip, and fall. According to Ernst & Young, 59% of companies experienced a significant breach in the last twelve months – and only 26% of respondents say the SOC identified that event. These statistics show the case for XDR is clear – and that it is time to learn and reap the benefits of taking a proactive approach.
Organizations are still vulnerable to malicious actors attempting to take advantage of disparate remote workforces – and we’re seeing them get craftier, acting faster and more frequently. This is where XDR offers a pivotal differentiator by providing actionable intelligence and integrated functionality across control vectors, resulting in more proactive investigation cycles.
When it comes to analysis, data can quickly become overwhelming, introducing an opportunity to miss critical threats or malicious intent with more manual or siloed processes. Meaningful context is crucial and no industry is exempt from needing it.
This is where McAfee is providing the advantage with MVISION XDR powered MVISION Insights. The ability to know likely and prioritized threat campaigns based on geographical and industry prevalence – and have them correlated and assessed across your local environment – provides the situational awareness and analysis that can allow SOC teams to act before threats occur. Additionally, as endpoints only promise to increase, MVISION XDR works in conjunction with McAfee’s endpoint protection platform (EPP), increasing effectiveness with added safeguards including antivirus, encryption, data loss prevention technologies and more at the endpoint.
Think of the impact and damage that can happen without this crucial and context MVISION Insights can provide. The consequences can be dire when looking at industries that have faced extreme upheaval.
For example, in keeping with our theme, we know the importance of essential healthcare workers and cannot be grateful enough for their contributions. But as the industry faces extreme challenges and an increase in both patient load and data, we also need to be paying close attention to how this data is being managed, who has privilege to it, and what threats exist as even this typical in-person industry shifts virtual due to our updated circumstances. Having meaningful context on potential threats will help this industry avoid added challenges so focus can remain steadfast on creating impact and positive results.
Outside of the tremendous advantage of being less vulnerable to threats and breaches due to proactivity, incredible efficiencies can be gained by freeing cybersecurity staff from those previously manual tasks and management of multiple silos of solutions. The time is definitely now too – according to (ISC)², 65% of organizations already report a shortage of cybersecurity staff.
Coupled with staff shortages and lack of skilled workers, an IBM report also found that the average time to detect and contain a data breach is 280 days. Going back to the view that the SOC serves as an organization’s cybersecurity brain – 280 days can cause massive amounts of damage if an anomaly in the brain were to occur unnoticed or unaddressed.
For the SOC, the longer a breach goes undetected, the more information and data becomes vulnerable or leaked – leading not only to a disruption in business, but ultimately financial losses as well.
XDR is the future of the SOC. We know that simplified, cohesive visualization and control across the entire infrastructure leads the SOC to better situational awareness – the catalyst for faster time to remediation. The improved, holistic viewpoint XDR provides across all vectors from endpoint, network, and cloud helps to eliminate mistakes and isolated endeavors across an organization’s entire IT framework.
With AI-guided investigation, analysts have an automatic exchange of data and information to move faster from validation to decision when it comes to threats. This is promising as organizations not only tackle a shortage in cybersecurity staff, but skilled workers as well. According to the same (ISC)² survey as above, 36% of those polled cite lack of skilled or experienced staff being a top concern.
Knowing the power of data and information, we can confidently assume that malicious actors will never stop their quest to infiltrate and extort enterprises. True to the well-known anecdote, this knowledge brings about great responsibility. Enterprises will face challenges as threats increase while talent and staff decrease – all while dealing with vendor sprawl and choice-overload across the market.
SOC Assessment Tool
Time to schedule a check-up for your SOC. It may not be as healthy as you think and true to both the medical and security industries, proactivity and prevention can lead to optimized functionality.
Want to learn more about McAfee’s investment in XDR and explore its approach? Check out McAfee MVISION XDR.
The post SOC Health Check: Prescribing XDR for Enterprises appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
FreshRSS 