Cyber139- Protect, Prevent Cybercrime

The National Cyber Security Centre officially opens for business

February 14, 2017February 15, 2017 By Cyber SecurityNo Comments

The Queen officially opened the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) yesterday- the single, central body for cyber security at a national level.

The NCSC is core to the government’s National Cyber Security Strategy, which was unveiled on 1 October 2016.

Staff in Victoria, central London, will be joined by experts from GCHQ and the private sector to help identify threats.

At the time, Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond said: “The new National Cyber Security Centre will provide a hub of world-class, user-friendly expertise for businesses and individuals, as well as rapid response to major incidents.”

Hammond said the government’s 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review classified cyber as a Tier One threat to the UK, and outlined the actions the government needed to take to secure the country.

According to the National Cyber Security 2016-2021 report, NCSC’s role will be to manage national cyber incidents, provide an authoritative voice and centre of expertise on cyber security, and deliver tailored support and advice to government departments, the devolved administrations, regulators and businesses.

“The NCSC will analyse, detect and understand cyber threats, and will also provide its cyber security expertise to support the government’s efforts to foster innovation, support a thriving cyber security industry, and stimulate the development of cyber security skills,” the report said.

There were 188 cyber attacks classed by the NCSC as Category Two or Three during the last three months.

And even though the UK has not experienced a Category One attack – the highest level, an example of which would have been the theft of confidential details of millions of Americans from the Office of Personnel Management – there is no air of complacency at the NCSC’s new headquarters.

Ciaran Martin, the centre’s chief executive, said “We have had significant losses of personal data, significant intrusions by hostile state actors, significant reconnaissance against critical national infrastructure – and our job is to make sure we deal with it in the most effective way possible.”

As well as protecting against and responding to high-end attacks on government and business, the NCSC also aims to protect the economy and wider society.

The UK is one of the most digitally dependent economies, with the digital sector estimated to be worth over £118 billion per year – which means the country has much to lose.

It is not just a crippling cyber-attack on infrastructure that could turn out the lights which worries officials, but also a loss of confidence in the digital economy from consumers and businesses, as a result of criminals exploiting online vulnerabilities.

A sustained effort was required by government and private sector working together to make the UK the hardest possible target, officials say.

Russia has been the focus of recent concern, following claims it used cyber-attacks to interfere with the recent US presidential election.

“I think there has been a significant change in the Russian approach to cyber-attacks and the willingness to carry it out, and clearly that’s something we need to be prepared to deal with,” Mr Martin said.

Kreb’s Immutable Truths About Data Breaches

February 5, 2017 By Cyber SecurityNo Comments

Cyber 139 have been following Brian Kreb’s writings for a while and his Dilbert style post below caught our imagination:

Cyber 139 have been following Brian Kreb's writings for a while and his Dilbert style post below caught our imagination:

I’ve had several requests for a fresh blog post: A list of immutable truths about data breaches, cybersecurity and the consequences of inaction.

“There are some fairly simple, immutable truths that each of us should keep in mind, truths that apply equally to political parties, organizations and corporations alike:

-If you connect it to the Internet, someone will try to hack it.

-If what you put on the Internet has value, someone will invest time and effort to steal it.

-Even if what is stolen does not have immediate value to the thief, he can easily find buyers for it.

-The price he secures for it will almost certainly be a tiny slice of its true worth to the victim.

-Organizations and individuals unwilling to spend a small fraction of what those assets are worth to secure them against cybercrooks can expect to eventually be relieved of said assets.”

They may not be complete, but as a set of truisms these tenets probably will age pretty well. After all, taken as a whole they are practically a model Cybercriminal Code of Ethics, or a cybercrook’s social contract.

Nevertheless, these tenets might be even more powerful if uttered in the voice of the crook himself. That may be more in keeping with the theme of this blog overall, which seeks to explain cybersecurity and cybercrime concepts through the lens of the malicious attacker (often this is a purely economic perspective).

So let’s rifle through this ne’er-do-well’s bag of tricks, tools and tells. Let us borrow from his literary perspective. I imagine a Cybercriminal Code of Ethics might go something like this (again, in the voice of a seasoned crook):

-If you hook it up to the Internet, we’re gonna hack at it.

-If what you put on the Internet is worth anything, one of us is gonna try to steal it.

-Even if we can’t use what we stole, it’s no big deal. There’s no hurry to sell it. Also, we know people.

-We can’t promise to get top dollar for what we took from you, but hey — it’s a buyer’s market. Be glad we didn’t just publish it all online.

-If you can’t or won’t invest a fraction of what your stuff is worth to protect it from the likes of us, don’t worry: You’re our favorite type of customer!

From: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/01/krebss-immutable-truths-about-data-breaches/

Hackers follow the money too

January 20, 2017 By Cyber SecurityNo Comments

Deepthroat suggested during the Watergate investigations to “follow the money”- for Nixon then, read hackers now.

Now hackers are going after law firms for exactly the same reason. This month, US prosecutors charged three Chinese traders with securities fraud, saying they had made more than $4m trading on information allegedly stolen from two of the US’s best known law firms.

Though prosecutors did not identify the firms, the descriptions of them and the work they had done match Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Weil, Gotshal, two firms routinely hired by Fortune 500 companies to help run their big deals. Both firms have declined to comment.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission said the hackers targeted seven firms known for their mergers and acquisitions work, hitting them with more than 100,000 attacks over a three-month period. They then struck gold with two

They then struck gold with two organisations. After installing malware on each law firm’s computer network, they gained access to their IT departments and from there broke into the files and emails of senior M&A lawyers. They ended up stealing nearly 60 gigabytes of data related to at least 10 potential deals.

In several cases, the information bore fruit — the hackers gained early word of Pitney Bowes’ 2015 offer for ecommerce group Borderfree and Intel’s 2015 purchase of Altera, and were able to trade ahead of them.

“This case of cyber meets securities fraud should serve as a wake-up call for law firms around the world: you are and will be targets of cyber hacking because you have information valuable to would-be criminals,” said Preet Bharara, the US attorney for Manhattan.

Other professional services firms should take note- your reputation and organisation are at risk from hackers.

This is not the first time the industry has been hit by hackers who specialise in what is becoming known as “outsider trading”. Last year federal prosecutors charged nine people in the US and Ukraine with trading ahead of earnings press releases that had been provided to Marketwired, PR Newswire and Business Wire. That case inspired other Ukraine-based hackers to try their luck with law firms, according to intelligence firm Flashpoint, which put out a warning in March.

Accounting firms that provide tax advice on mergers, boutique advisory firms, and consultants who weigh in on synergies and downsizing plans are almost certainly on the criminals’ hit list. Retailers, telecoms groups and internet companies, including Target, TalkTalk and Yahoo, have already had to pay the price for weak defences.

But in some ways, they got off easy. Most of the stolen passwords were old and the account details rarely included immediately usable information. At most, the hacks involved theft of credit card numbers, which come with fraud defences. So customers have rarely felt much need to hold hacked companies accountable. Yahoo, for example, seems to have suffered very little drop off in customer loyalty after announcing the first of two giant hacks, although the jury is still out after the second one.

Professional services firms will not be so lucky. Banks and companies pay extremely high prices for outside advice. They expect professionalism and confidentiality in return. Getting hacked by a bunch of Chinese traders is hardly a strong recommendation of either.

Faced with a choice of five law firms that invested in cyber defences that were strong enough to withstand a pointed attack, and two who did not, which would you choose?

So if you want to save yourself stress, money and a damaged reputation from a cyber incident please ring us now on 01242 521967 or email safe@cyber139.com or complete the form on our contact page NOWFrom: https://www.ft.com/content/f52f6fee-ccf4-11e6-864f-20dcb35cede2

GDPR data protection fines

January 3, 2017 By Cyber SecurityNo Comments

GDPR- the General Data Protection Regulations and fines are less than 17 months away warns Cyber139. Happy New Year!

A two tiered system of fines will apply. Breaches of some provisions by businesses, which law makers have deemed to be most important for data protection, could lead to fines of up to €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is the greater, being levied by data watchdogs.

For other breaches, the authorities could impose fines on companies of up to €10 million or 2% of global annual turnover, whichever is greater.

Hoping that BREXIT might help you? Wrong- speaking in parliament in the week before Christmas, UK digital minister Matt Hancock again confirmed that the GDPR “will become directly applicable in UK law on 25 May 2018”.

Data controllers could face more severe regulatory fines than data processors for failing to keep personal data appropriately secure under the new General Data Protection Regulation

One of the many changes that the new Regulation will deliver when it comes into force on 25 May 2018 is a new statutory obligation on data security that data processors must observe above and beyond contractual duties agreed with data controller customers.

Under current EU data protection rules service providers that process personal data on behalf of other businesses cannot be held directly liable to individuals for a breach of data security. If data processors are at fault for data breaches then it is the data controller who contracted with them whose neck is on the block for any non compliance with data protection laws, although the data processor could be liable to the data controller under their contract.

The Regulation addresses this anomaly but makes a distinction between the maximum fine data protection authorities will be able to levy against data controllers compared to data processors for failings on data security.

The relevant provisions on data security are contained under Articles 5 and 32 of the Regulation.

Article 5 sets out basic rules on personal data processing which only apply to data controllers, considered to be fundamental to data protection. One of those rules requires data controllers to ensure that personal data is “processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures”.

According to the Article 83 provisions of the Regulation on administrative fines, where data controllers breach that Article 5 requirement they can be served with the highest possible fine that data protection authorities will be able to issue under the reformed framework.

In contrast if data processors breach their statutory data security obligations, set out under Article 32, which requires them to “implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk” of their personal data processing, then the most they could be fined is up to €10m or 2% of global annual turnover.

Data controllers are also subject to the Article 32 obligations. It therefore appears open to national data protection authorities to fine data controllers for any data security failings under Article 5 or Article 32. Their choice in those circumstances would impact on the severity of the fines they could issue.

Whether security measures are appropriate in each instance will depend on “the state of the art, the costs of implementation and the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risk of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons”, according to the Regulation.

Beyond the imposition of administrative fines for data security breaches, the Regulation will also introduce an updated right for data subjects to claim compensation for damages they suffer from such incidents.

A data controller or data processor could be sued for compensation as well as being exposed to the administrative fines – being fined will not shield it from compensation claims, and vice versa.

The revised right will allow data subjects to pursue either data controllers or data processors for all of the compensation owed to them for the damage they have suffered from a data breach, although a processor will only be liable for damage caused by processing where it has not complied with any part of the Regulation that applies to them or if it has “acted outside or contrary to lawful instructions of the controller”.

Data controllers pursued for damages will be able to claim back all or some of the money they pay out from their data processor if the data processor was in fact responsible, wholly or in part, for the breach.

Equally, data processors will have the same right to claim back money from data controllers, or indeed other data processors involved, whose fault caused or contributed to the damage, if the data subject pursues the data processor for the full compensation pay-out.

So if you want to save yourself stress, money and a damaged reputation from a cyber incident please ring us now on 01242 521967 or email safe@cyber139.com or complete the form on our contact page NOW

Cyber 139 wishes you a secure and prosperous New Year

January 2, 2017 By Cyber SecurityNo Comments

Cyber 139 wishes you a secure and prosperous New Year for 2017.

Cheltenham based cyber security and protection firm Cyber 139 wishes you a secure and prosperous New Year for 2017.

Overall 24% of ALL businesses surveyed in 2016 had had one or more cyber security breaches in the past 12 months- so please don’t let you be a victim in 2017.

So if you want to save yourself stress, money and a damaged reputation from a cyber incident please ring us now on 01242 521967 or email safe@cyber139.com or complete the form on our contact page NOW

Cyber crime costs small businesses the most

December 29, 2016 By Cyber SecurityNo Comments

New research has found that cyber crime is disproportionately effecting small businesses the most.

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has found that small firms are unfairly carrying the cost of cyber crime in an increasingly vulnerable digital economy.

The report Cyber Crime: How to protect small firms in the digital economy suggests smaller firms are collectively attacked seven million times per year, costing the UK economy an estimated £5.26 billion.

Despite the vast majority of small firms (93%) taking steps to protect their business from digital threats, two thirds (66%) have been a victim of cyber crime in the last two years. Over that period, those affected have been victims on four occasions on average, costing each business almost £3000 in total.

Cyber crime costs small businesses disproportionately more than big businesses when adjusted for organisational size.

Currently the responsibility largely falls on small businesses to protect themselves. FSB is calling for more support to be given to those smaller firms least able to bear the burden of the increasing global cyber threat.

Almost all (99%) of the UK’s 5.4 million small firms rate the internet as being highly important to their business, with two in three (66%) offering, or planning to offer, goods and services online. Without intervention, the growing sophistication of cyber attacks could stifle small business growth and in the worst cases close them down.

Mike Cherry, FSB National Chairman, said: “The digital economy is vital to small businesses – presenting a huge opportunity to reach new markets and customers – but these benefits are matched by the risk of opportunities for criminals to attack businesses.

“Small firms take their cyber security responsibility very seriously but often they are the least able to bear the cost of doing so. Smaller businesses have limited resources, time and expertise to deal with ever-evolving and increasing digital attacks. We’re calling on Government, larger businesses, individuals and providers to take part in a joint effort to tackle cyber crime and improve business resilience.”

The types of cyber crime most commonly affecting small businesses are phishing emails (49%), spear phishing emails (37%), and malware attacks (29%).

Small firms are also concerned about hacking and fraud when the card is not present, with the average information breach setting them back 2.2 days.

To combat this, four in five small firms (80%) use computer securing software, and well over half (53%) perform regular updates of their IT systems.

The FSB report also found room for small firms to improve security.

Currently just a quarter of smaller businesses (24%) have a strict password policy, four per cent have a written plan of what to do if attacked online, and just two per cent have a recognised security standard such as ISO27001 or the Government’s Cyber Essentials scheme.

Mike Cherry added: “Small firms are understandably focussed on building their businesses and creating the jobs which drive economic growth. The vulnerabilities of the digital world affects everyone and the responsibility for improving resilience should not be left to the group with least resource to do something about it.

Yahoo confirms one billion users have had data hacked

December 15, 2016 By Cyber SecurityNo Comments

Bob Lord, chief information security officer at Yahoo, admits details of the breach in a blog post.

“We believe an unauthorised third party, in August 2013, stole data associated with more than one billion user accounts. We have not been able to identify the intrusion associated with this theft,” he said.

Speaking to Computer Weekly, Jonathan Care, a research director at market watcher Gartner, said Yahoo’s lack of clarity on this point was troubling.

“The implication is that Yahoo has overly focused on deploying protective technologies, and has not put in place effective analytics, detection and response systems and processes,” he said.

“From what we do know, the attackers made use of cookie masquerading, pass-the-hash and a state-sponsored actor. This gives strength to the importance of a strong detection plan.”

The incident came to light after US law enforcers shared files with the company that a third-party claimed contained Yahoo user data.

“We analysed this data with the assistance of outside forensic experts and found that it appears to be Yahoo user data,” said Lord.

Yahoo admits that staff knew about the data breach two years before it was confirmed publicly, and that the incident could affect the $4.83bn sale deal with Verizon.

“For potentially affected accounts, the stolen user account information may have included names, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, hashed passwords (using MD5) and, in some cases, encrypted or unencrypted security questions and answers.”

“We are notifying potentially affected users and have taken steps to secure their accounts, including requiring users to change their passwords,” he said. “We have also invalidated unencrypted security questions and answers so that they cannot be used to access an account.”

Which suggests that many personal questions have been hacked as well.

This latest breach comes several months after Yahoo revealed details of another historic attack on its systems, dating back to 2014, which led to the personal details of at least 500 million users becoming exposed.

At the time, the incident was reported to be the largest publicly reported breach of its kind, but the August 2013 one is understood to be considerably bigger.

After news of the 2014 hack broke, Yahoo confirmed some staff knew about it several years before details were publicly disclosed, and acknowledged that it could lead to Verizon withdrawing its $4.83bn bid to acquire the company.

In light of its latest disclosure, questions are now being raised about how the news may affect the deal, given Verizon went on record in October 2016 to say the previous breach could pave the way for it to drop its bid.

“It also emphasises the importance of purchasers understanding the security risks of target businesses and building in contractual mechanisms to adjust the price, or even allow them to walk away from the deal if breaches like these come to light before completion.”

“Clearly, the upshot of this is that we need to realise that it’s no longer a case of ‘if we’re targeted or unlucky’, but that we are all targets.”

Camelot’s National Lottery accounts are hacked

November 30, 2016 By Cyber SecurityNo Comments

It could be you- as tens of thousands of online lottery Camelot players’ accounts are hacked.

National Lottery operator Camelot says the login details of thousands of people who do the lottery online have been stolen.

There are 9.5 million national lottery players registered online, but Camelot said only around 26,500 accounts were accessed. It added that fewer than 50 accounts have had suspicious activity, such as personal details being changed, since the breach.

The company said it unearthed “suspicious activity on a very small proportion of our players’ online National Lottery Accounts” during its online security monitoring on 28 November 2016.

It added that there has been no unauthorised access to core systems. “In addition, no money has been deposited or withdrawn from affected player accounts,” said Camelot.

“However, we do believe that this attack may have resulted in some of the personal information that the affected players hold in their online account being accessed.”

The company said it is now trying to find out what happened, but it believes that “the email address and password used on the National Lottery website may have been stolen from another website where affected players use the same details”.

The affected accounts have been suspended and Camelot will contact the account holders to re-activate them. Camelot added that it is working with the National Cyber Security Centre on the incident.

Are you an online lottery player?

If so, just crossing your fingers is not enough. To mitigate risks in the short term, account holders should update passwords and avoid using the same password across multiple sites.

Why are businesses ignoring cybercrime and cyber risks?

November 21, 2016 By Cyber SecurityNo Comments

How can cyber security professionals help businesses to understand the cyber risks?

Business owners don’t like spending money on anything that doesn’t make them more money. Even insurance is a grudge purchase. I’m never fond of paying a high premium, but if there’s a risk that I could lose my livelihood and house if I fail to get the right insurance cover, then I accept that.

Mitigating cyber risk is exactly the same. If companies don’t do it, then they could go out of business.

But there’s definitely over-confidence in the space, and I often hear “well, it will never happen to us, we’ve just installed anti-virus on all of our laptops”.

So exactly how do you give the business that niggling feeling that encourages them to mitigate security risks? The reactive approach definitely isn’t the right way, demanding cash after something has happened to plug a hole.

The sales led approach isn’t the right way, where security suppliers force silver bullets down your throat and you end up buying something to help them meet their sales targets, regardless of how nice it makes your treasured server rack look.

It’s about taking a proactive stance, and dealing with cyber security before something happens; and being prepared to tell security suppliers where to stick their hardware if it doesn’t fit into your security programme.

I’ve never seen a business turn down a carefully prepared cyber security risk mitigation programme that fits the business. Fortunately, creating one is remarkably simple. Define scope. Carry out a security audit on said scope. Conduct a gap analysis, work out three costed options with pros and cons to address each gap, and present to the business.

But that still doesn’t mean the business will buy in. We’re missing that niggling feeling. Much as I dislike scare tactics, now would probably be a good time to think about them, with a short, sharp exercise that demonstrates to the business exactly what could go wrong in their cyber world.

Simulate a phishing email. It’s easy enough. Put an EICAR (European expert group for IT-security) malware test file on your CEO’s laptop. Take your CFO’s laptop away for an hour and simulate critical hardware theft. Leave a suspicious package in the mail room. Simulate a web server hack.

These exercises would take less than an hour of the board’s time and, while they won’t get the cheque book out, they will raise awareness over time. Throw in a few fire drills to keep their minds off cyber for a bit. Simulate a flood. The point being, over time, your business can become cyber-aware; and ultimately this loosens the purse strings and gets you that next hire and support for implementing change.

UK organisations are still not taking ransomware seriously enough

November 2, 2016 By Cyber SecurityNo Comments

UK organisations are still not taking ransomware seriously enough, and continue to fall prey to this method of low cost, low risk cyber extortion.

Businesses still get caught by ransomware, even though straightforward avoidance methods exist.The CryptoLocker ransomware caught many enterprises off guard, but there is a defence strategy that works.

Another factor promoting the popularity of ransomware among attackers, is that unlike many other forms of malware, ransomware does not require any special user rights.

“If your system gets infected by a keylogger, it has to escalate privileges to become an administrator on the system so it can survive a reboot, but all ransomware needs is access to the files the infected user can access,” said chief research officer at F-Secure Mikko Hypponen.

“This makes them a unique problem because you can’t fight ransomware by locking down systems, restricting user access or removing administrator privileges from users.

“I fully support this approach to security. Only give users access to what they need, take away admin privileges, but none of these things will protect against ransomware.”

The most effective way to counter ransomware, said Hypponen, is to backup all critical data, but many organisations are failing in this.

“They may be backing up data, but they are typically not doing it often enough. They are not backing up all the information they really need because files are not being saved to the right folders, and they are not testing their backups regularly. Even if they have backed up the information, they are often unable to restore it to a usable form,” he said.

“In addition to regularly tested backups, organisations should also ensure they would be able to detect and respond to a live ransomware Trojan on their network before it has succeeded in locking up all the data,” said Hypponen.

One way of approaching this is to plant dummy “canary” files throughout the network. These should never be touched by legitimate users and act as alarms. If these files are touched, it points to malicious activity on the network.

Ransomware is also popular, he said, because its developers are able to outsource the risk to partners whose role is infect computers in return for a share in the money extorted from victims.

In addition to ransomware, another new business model for cyber criminals is circumventing the fingerprint locks on iPhones.

“Once fingerprint readers were added to iPhones, users were able to lock and unlock them quickly and easily. This meant that if the phone was stolen, it was useless and could be only sold for spares, which did not yield very much,” said Hypponen.

But researchers are now starting to see criminal organisations that are able to trick victims of mobile phone theft into revealing their iCloud credentials.

“Victims typically receive an email message a few days after their phone is stolen to say it has been located using the ‘track my iPhone’ facility, telling them to click the link embedded in the message,” said Hypponen.

“But the link takes them to a phishing site that asks them to log into their iCloud account, and once they have done that, the criminals have the information to reset the stolen phone and sell it as a fully working device.”

The second lesson learned in 25 years of cyber security, said Hypponen, is that people will never learn, and that user education is a waste of time.

“It doesn’t matter how many times you tell them, they will always double click on every executable. They will always follow every link, they will always type their password and credit card number into any online form that asks for that information, and they will always post their credit card picture and even CVV numbers on Twitter,” he said.

Admitting this may be overly pessimistic, Hypponen said that instead of trying to “patch” people by educating them, the responsibility should be shifted to those better equipped to handle it.

“We should be thinking about where we really want the responsibility to be,” he added. “Do we really want people to be responsible for security when most of them can’t handle it, or should we be thinking about taking the responsibility away from the user and giving it to operating system developers, security companies, and internet service providers and mobile operating firms that provide the connectivity that causes the problems in the first place?”