Cybercrooks’ preferred path to critical data is through privileged accounts, those held by users who have broad access and powers within the target’s network.

That’s according to a recent survey conducted by the cybersecurity firm Thycotic at the recent Black Hat conference in Las Vegas, reported Infosecurity Magazine.  About a third of respondents named privileged accounts the fastest and easiest path to critical data, while user email accounts were a close second at 27 percent.

Some 85 percent said human error, not inadequate security or unpatched software, was most to blame for security breaches.

Hackers’ biggest headaches? Multifactor authentication and encryption, according to the survey.

 

 

 

 

 

Shata Stucky writes:

Username and password login fields, online securityThe United States National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has issued new guidelines for creating secure passwords.  NIST guidelines, which are directed to “federal government systems,” often become best practice recommendations across the security industry.

The new guidelines are a significant break from previous rules.  Security experts previously recommended frequent password changes and using a mixture of upper case letters, symbols, and numbers.  The NIST guidelines acknowledge that users often work around these types of restrictions in a way that is counterproductive.  The most effective passwords are those that are easy for the user to remember so that it is less likely they will be written down or stored electronically in an unsafe manner.

Accordingly, NIST recommends dropping complexity requirements and requirements for frequent password changes.  Instead organizations should emphasize password length:  Passwords should be at least 8 characters in length, and users should be allowed a maximum length of at least 64 characters.

Additional recommendations can be found in the NIST guidelines, accessible on the NIST’s website.


Shata L. Stucky is an associate in the firm’s Privacy & Data Security practice, resident in its Seattle office.

Data privacy and securityFox Rothschild partner and firm Chief Privacy Officer Mark G. McCreary sees a trend: Law firms are increasingly recognizing that naming a lawyer to lead data security and privacy efforts is “an essential ingredient in good risk management.”

In an article for Law360 entitled “Notes From A Law Firm Chief Privacy Officer: CPO vs. CISO,” McCreary writes:

“To understand the role of the CPO — and why that person ought to be a lawyer — it’s important to distinguish the role they fill from that of the chief information security officer or CISO, who is typically a nonlawyer and leads the firm’s information technology department.”

We invite you to read his full article.

 

A German cybersecurity firm reports that manufacturers have become a top target of cybercriminals.

The NTT Security Global Threat Intelligence Center (GTIC) Quarterly Threat Intelligence Report for the second quarter of 2017 notes that manufacturers were targeted in 34 percent of incidents, the highest of any industry segment. About a third of those incidents involved “reconnaissance” which suggests the industry is still in hackers’ sights. “If trends from the past few years continue, this probably indicates that attacks and malware are likely to increase in manufacturing organizations in the second half of 2017,” according to the report.

The report also noted a 24 percent increase in attacks on NTT clients in the second quarter and that cyber criminals go-to attack vector has been “phishing emails with malicious attachments containing PowerShell commands in VBA macros.”

Read the full report.

A bipartisan group of Senators wants to make it more difficult for hackers to enlist smart thermostats, wireless security cameras and other connected devices in future cyberattacks.

ZDNet reports that Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) have introduced legislation that would require suppliers of devices to the federal government to ensure connected items such as wearables and smart sensors can be patched with security fixes. The bill would also prohibit the use of hard-coded usernames and passwords, which are considered one of the primary paths malware use to hijack smart devices. In addition, the legislation offers new legal protections to cyber security experts testing connected devices’ digital defenses.

The growing universe of poorly secured smart devices, often referred to as the Internet of Things (IoT), was blamed for last years’ distributed denial of service attack that temporarily took down services such as Twitter, Netflix and Spotify. Click here to read the legislation.

 

One way to measure the increasing importance of cybersecurity to American businesses is to track how often the issue arises as a risk factor in corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A recent analysis by Bloomberg BNA charted a dramatic rise over the past six years, with only a tiny fraction of businesses citing cybersecurity risks in 2011 SEC filings compared to a substantial percentage in the first six months of 2017.

The report notes that a likely reason for the increase was SEC guidance issued in 2011 that clarified when cyber incidents should be disclosed in financial filings, leading to cybersecurity’s being “elevated into the general counsel’s office [and onto] the board’s agenda.”

Read more at Bloomberg BNA’s article Corporate Cyber Risk Disclosures Jump Dramatically in 2017.

Computer networking giant Cisco says the recent WannaCry and Petya/NotPetya incidents signal the advent of a new generation of cyberattacks that is aimed more at mass disruption than financial gain. The new breed of “Destruction of Service” attacks will only grow more sophisticated and potent, the company says in its Cisco 2017 Midyear Cybersecurity Report.

The report warns that cybercriminals “now have the ability—and often now, it seems, the inclination—to lock systems and destroy data as part of their attack process.” The report, released July 20, also lays out new threats posed by the growing network of connected devices known as the “Internet of Things” and examines’ hackers’ continued use of Business Email Compromise (BEC) attacks, which it says accounted for $5.3 billion in cybertheft between 2013 and 2016.

Venerable insurer Lloyd’s of London says a global cyber attack on a major provider of cloud services could carry costs of up to $53 billion, reports Data Breach Today.

That’s a hefty price tag that explains the rising demand for cyber insurance. It also sheds light on why insurers are proceeding extremely carefully. The costs of a major data breach can be significant and difficult to predict.

To help define the level of exposure, Lloyd’s worked with cyber consultant Cyence to produce a new report that outlines the direct economic costs of two types of global cyber attacks and estimates the portion of the loss in each scenario that would covered by insurance. In the case of a cloud services attack, only 17 percent of the loss would be insured, Lloyd’s estimates. In the case of a global attack exploiting a software vulnerability, only 7 percent of the estimated loss of up to $28 billion would be assured.

Analysts estimate the cyber insurance market is worth up to $3.5 billion today and could grow to $7.5 billion by 2020.

Cybersecurity workforce
Copyright: Tawatdchai Muelae / 123RF Stock Photo

Cybersecurity positions are increasingly difficult to fill and the long-term prospects for the industry don’t appear to be getting any brighter, Ericka Chickowski warns at the blog DARKReading. More than 25 percent of organizations take six months or longer to fill priority positions, she reports in “Desperately Seeking Security: 6 Skills Most In Demand.”

By 2022, Chickowski notes, there will be a global shortfall of cybersecurity workers of 1.8 million people, according to the Global Information Security Workforce Study conducted by Frost & Sullivan.

Read more at DARKReading

Acting Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen made it clear that she expects the FTC’s enforcement role in protecting privacy and security to encompass automated and connected vehicles. In her opening remarks at a June 28, 2017 workshop hosted by the FTC and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), she said the FTC will take action against manufacturers and service providers of autonomous and connected vehicles if their activities violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices.

Such concern is warranted as new technologies allow vehicles to not only access the Internet, but also to independently generate, store and transmit all types of data – some of which could be very valuable to law enforcement, insurance companies, and other industries. For example, such data can not only show a car’s precise location, but also whether it violated posted speed limits, and aggressively followed behind, or cut-off, other cars.

Acting Chairman Ohlhausen noted that the FTC wants to coordinate its regulatory efforts with NHTSA, and envisions that both organizations will have important roles, similar to the way the FTC and the Department of Health and Human Services both have roles with respect to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Traditionally, NHTSA has dealt with vehicle safety issues, as opposed to privacy and data security. Thus, it may mean that the FTC will have a key role on these issues as they apply to connected cars, as it already has been a major player on privacy and data security in other industries.

Acting Chairman Ohlhausen also encouraged Congress to consider data breach and data security legislation for these new industries, but speakers at the workshop (video available here and embedded below) noted that legislation in this area will have difficulty keeping up with the fast pace of change of these technologies.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Specific federal legislation, or even laws at the state level, may be slow in coming given the many stakeholders who have an interest in the outcome. Until then, the broad mandate of Section 5 may be one of the main sources of enforcement. Companies who provide goods or services related to autonomous and connected vehicles should be familiar with the basic FTC security advice we have already blogged about here, and should work with knowledgeable attorneys as they pursue their design and manufacture plans.