Category Archives: Cyber Crime

Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

RIMS and ISACA Release Joint Report “Bridging the Digital Risk Gap”

Posted on by

All too often, IT and risk management professionals seem to be speaking a different language—that is, if they even speak at all. Bridging the Digital Risk Gap, the new report jointly authored by the RIMS, the risk management society®, and ISACA®, promotes understanding, collaboration and communication between these professionals to get the most out of their organizations’ technological investments.

Digital enterprise strategy and execution are emerging as essential horizontal competencies to support business objectives. No longer the sole purview of technical experts, cybersecurity risks and opportunities are now a core component of a business risk portfolio.

buy lasix online www.arborvita.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/lasix.html no prescription pharmacy

Strong collaboration between IT and risk management professionals facilitates strategic alignment of resources and promotes the creation of value across an enterprise.

ISACA’s Risk IT Framework acknowledges and integrates the interaction between the two professional groups by embedding IT practices within enterprise risk management, enabling an organization to secure optimal risk-adjusted return. In viewing digital risk through an enterprise lens, organizations can better realize a broader operational impact and spur improvements in decision-making, collabora­tion and accountability. In order to achieve optimal value, however, risk management should be a part of technology implementation from a project’s outset and throughout its life cycle. By understanding the technology life cycle, IT and risk management professionals can identify the best opportuni­ties for collaboration among themselves and with other important functional roles.

IT and risk management professionals both employ various tools and strategies to help manage risk. Although the methodologies used by the two groups differ, they are generally designed to achieve similar results. Generally, practitioners from both professions start with a baseline of business objectives and the establishment of context to enable the application of risk-based decision making. By integrating frameworks (such as the NIST Cybersecurity framework and the ANSI RA.1 risk assessment standard), roles and assessment methods, IT and risk management professionals can better coordinate their efforts to address threats and create value.

For example, better coordination of risk assessments allows orga­nizations to improve performance by iden­tifying a broader range of risks and potential mitigations, and ensures that operations are proceeding within acceptable risk tolerances.

buy arimidex online www.arborvita.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/arimidex.html no prescription pharmacy

It also provides a clearer, more informed picture of an enterprise’s risks, which can help an organization’s board as they make IT funding decisions, along with other business investments. Leveraging the respective assessment techniques also leads to more informed underwriting—and thus improves pricing of insurance programs, terms of coverage, products and services.

Overall, developing clear, common language and mutual understanding can serve as a strong bridge to unite the cultures, bring these two areas together and create significant value along the way.

buy sinequan online www.arborvita.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/sinequan.html no prescription pharmacy

The report is currently available to RIMS and ISACA members through their respective websites. The report can be downloaded through the RIMS Risk Knowledge library by clicking here or from ISACA at www.isaca.org/digital-risk-gap. For more information about RIMS and to learn about other RIMS publications, educational opportunities, conferences and resources, visit www.RIMS.org. To learn more about ISACA and its resources, visit www.isaca.org.

Insulin Pumps Recalled After Hacking Vulnerability Revealed

Posted on by

After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expressed concern this week that some of its internet-connected insulin pumps are vulnerable to hacking and could not be patched, medical device manufacturer Medtronic Plc has announced that they would offer an exchange for the 4,000 patients who are reportedly using the vulnerable devices. If patients are using vulnerable out-of-warranty models, Medtronic is offering a newer replacement at a discounted price, and in-warranty models will be replaced free of charge.

The Medtronic insulin pumps in question work by regularly providing insulin to the patient with the help of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), which uses Bluetooth to connect to a computer via a CareLink USB device. This system allows patients to remotely send the device commands and share data with their health care providers. These devices are part of an industry-wide push to connect medical devices to the internet (as part of the wider internet of things, or IoT) to allow more efficient and cost-effective communication between patients and providers.

While the exact nature of the insulin pump vulnerability is unclear at this time—neither the FDA nor Medtronic has disclosed any technical details—the danger from someone exploiting the vulnerability is very serious and could be potentially fatal. According to the FDA, “an unauthorized person (someone other than a patient, patient caregiver, or health care provider) could potentially connect wirelessly to a nearby MiniMed insulin pump with cybersecurity vulnerabilities. This person could change the pump’s settings to either over-deliver insulin to a patient, leading to low blood sugar (hypoglycemia), or stop insulin delivery, leading to high blood sugar and diabetic ketoacidosis.” In a letter to patients using one of the vulnerable pumps, Medtronic confirmed the potential danger, saying that “An unauthorized person with special technical skills and equipment could potentially connect wirelessly to a nearby insulin pump to change settings and control insulin delivery.”

Fortunately, there have not been any reported cases of anyone exploiting the vulnerability, but it is not the case of such an issue affecting these devices. In 2011, a security researcher was able to hijack nearby Medtronic insulin pumps, giving him the ability to deliver potentially fatal doses of insulin to patients within 300 feet. After the vulnerability was revealed, Medtronic released a statement saying that it was working to improve their devices’ security.

This March, it was also revealed that Medtronic’s connected pacemakers, clinic programmers and home monitors were also vulnerable to hacking. In that case, Dutch security researchers discovered the security flaws, which the company reportedly initially denied before the FDA began an investigation. The agency later issued a warning about the pacemakers, and Medtronic released a patch for the software. As with the insulin pumps, there were no reported cases of anyone taking advantage of the security flaw before the fix was implemented.

Speaking to CBS News after the March incident, the FDA’s Dr. Suzanne Schwartz said, “Any device can be hacked and that’s often not understood,” adding that companies are not prepared for this reality and that “we still have a ways to go.” This week, the FDA released a set of recommendations regarding the latest insulin pump vulnerability, including a suggestion to patients: “Talk to your health care provider about a prescription to switch to a model with more cybersecurity protection.”

Such cases highlight the continuing potential risks of internet-connected medical devices. As discussed in the recent Risk Management article “Diagnosis: Risk—The Product Liability Challenges of Diagnostic Health Tech,” cyber vulnerability is only one of the many challenges for manufacturers and users of connected medical devices. These devices—especially ones that provide medical diagnostic data—have scores of built-in product liabilities that could land their manufacturers (as well as any number of other companies in the devices’ chain of distribution) in legal trouble if something goes awry.

Inside a Business Email Compromise Operation

Posted on by

A new report from cybersecurity company Agari’s Cyber Intelligence Division outlines the operations of a business email compromise (BEC) gang in West Africa, showing that criminals who engage in BEC online theft can have a diverse portfolio of online criminal activity that they use to build their capabilities, and use sophisticated methods to scam their victims, including businesses and government agencies.

BEC is a cyberfraud tactic in which a scammer will contact a target using phishing emails imitating a fellow employee of the target (often someone in the finance department or management) usually seeking to convince the victim to conduct a business transaction, most likely a money transfer to an account run by the scammer. The scammers may also try to trick their victims into clicking a link in an email or visiting a scam website, which could provide the scammers with the victim’s online credentials or download malware onto the victim’s computer and gain access to their company’s network.

As Risk Management previously reported, Beazley Breach Response Services found that BEC-related attacks cost victims an average of $70,960, but the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center has estimated that the total “revenues” of BEC attacks doubled in 2018 to $1.3 billion. BEC attacks are also extremely common—approximately two-thirds of IT executives are reportedly dealing with them.

Agari’s report, titled “Scattered Canary: The Evolution of a West African Cybercriminal Startup,” shows that cybercriminal gangs diversify their criminal schemes, using their established infrastructure from one type of scam to facilitate others. Agari researchers named the group Scattered Canary and compared it to a tech startup because of its recruitment and expansion strategy. Scattered Canary has pursued a variety of different criminal social engineering efforts, including:

  • Romance scams: Creating a fake online romantic relationship with a victim and requesting gifts, access to their bank or retirement accounts, or services related to other scams.
  • Check fraud: A scammer offers to purchase an item for more than its advertised price with a check (which is fraudulent), then requests that the seller send the extra amount to a third party (a fictional shipping company, for example).
    buy cellcept online blockdrugstores.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/cellcept.html no prescription pharmacy

  • Credential harvesting: Tricking victims into providing their online credentials, including log-in information for online financial services.

Agari says that Scattered Canary built up a network of members and the skills to easily transfer from one scheme to another.

buy zetia online blockdrugstores.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/zetia.html no prescription pharmacy

The group has used multiple BEC tactics over time, transitioning from tricking employees into carrying out wire transfers from their companies’ bank accounts to convincing victims to buy gift cards that scammers would then cash out via cryptocurrency exchanges.

buy levofloxacin online blockdrugstores.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/levofloxacin.html no prescription pharmacy

More recently, the group has targeted human resource departments to change the direct deposit information for a company’s executive, then cashed out the deposits using prepaid debit cards.

Businesses should train their staff at all levels on how to spot BEC and other types of online scams. If employees can recognize phishing emails and websites, and know not to click links or provide information in response to either, this can protect companies from fraud and significant financial loss. In addition to training staff, the FBI suggests always verifying requests to send money, even if the email requesting the transfer is urgent, by speaking directly to the person who seems to be requesting the money on the phone (using the previously known number, not the one provided in the email) or in person. The FBI also suggests setting up filters that flag email addresses that are similar to the company’s email, and creating an email rule that notes emails coming from outside the company, among other technical steps.

For more from Risk Management about controlling the risks of BEC and other social engineering fraud, check out:

Microsoft Vulnerability A Reminder to Update and Patch

Posted on by

Microsoft recently announced a major vulnerability to Windows XP, Windows 7 and several older Windows server versions. According to Simon Pope, the company’s director of incident response, “[A]ny future malware that exploits this vulnerability could propagate from vulnerable computer to vulnerable computer in a similar way as the WannaCry malware spread across the globe in 2017.” This announcement reinforces the importance of companies patching security vulnerabilities to mitigate the risk, especially on older machines that still serve essential functions.

This news follows a TechCrunch article reporting that at least a million computers worldwide, mostly in the United States, remain vulnerable to the WannaCry and NotPetya malware because users have not installed the necessary patches. Cybercriminals continue to use this malware, based on hacking tools originally developed by the NSA, to deliver all sorts of malicious software to unsuspecting victims online.

WannaCry is ransomware—malicious software that hijacks a computer and demands payment to regain control—that quickly spreads and has affected businesses, government and individuals in over 150 countries since 2017. Around the same time, a malicious software disguised as ransomware called NotPetya spread worldwide, affecting global business operations, and effectively paralyzing multiple companies in what has been called “the most devastating cyberattack in history.” Both caused massive financial damage worldwide, with WannaCry estimated at $8 billion in damages and NotPetya estimated at $3 billion.

Windows has released patches to protect systems from the newly announced vulnerability, even for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, despite the company not usually offering support for those older systems.

online pharmacy nolvadex with best prices today in the USA

However, XP users will have to manually download the patches from Microsoft’s update website. According to a 2017 Spiceworks study, businesses worldwide were still running Windows XP on 11% of their laptops and desktops. While that has likely decreased in the past two years, it would still leave a significant number of machines running exposed systems that require manual updates to patch.

Not patching vulnerabilities has led to serious incidents, like the Equifax breach in 2017, which led to the theft of 143 million Americans’ personal information.

online pharmacy buspar with best prices today in the USA

In that case, the US Department of Homeland Security had issued a warning about the vulnerability, a patch for a web application vulnerability had reportedly been available for 2 months before the breach, and Equifax failed to implement the fix. A US House Oversight Committee report blamed the company entirely, saying that Equifax “failed to implement an adequate security program to protect this sensitive data,” and that “such a breach was entirely preventable.”

Companies use numerous different types of software in their daily operations, and software providers issue many patches for their products, which leaves companies overwhelmed. According to an April 2018 Ponemon Institute study, 68% of companies “find it difficult to prioritize what needs to be patched first.” IT staffing limitations and competing priorities within organizations can hinder these efforts, since patching requires heavy time investment and sometimes taking important aspects of the business offline to implement fixes. Companies with third-party partners and supply chains face even more complex risks, since their systems are often integrated or dependent, and companies likely do not have direct control over partners’ systems to ensure patching. Mitigating outside risk by including in contracts stipulations that third-party partners meet certain security requirements can also help.

online pharmacy imodium with best prices today in the USA