IT Support and Hardware for Clinics
32.0K views | +2 today
Follow
IT Support and Hardware for Clinics
News, Information and Updates on Hardware and IT Tools to help improve your Medical practice
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!

Ransomware: The Right Response

Ransomware: The Right Response | IT Support and Hardware for Clinics | Scoop.it

So-called ransomware attacks are on the rise, namely because targeted businesses are increasingly willing to negotiate with - and even pay - their extortionists.


Ransomware has been getting a lot of media attention of late. On April 1, security firm Trend Micro reported that since the beginning of the year, numerous variants of crypto-ransomware have been discovered in the wild, striking consumers and businesses throughout the world.

 Criminals rarely hold up their end of the bargain, so negotiating with anyone who is demanding a ransom is just a bad idea. 


Just weeks earlier, security firms FireEye and Bitdefender issued warnings about new ransomware trends that were making these attacks more difficult to thwart and detect.


Now experts are calling attention to one of the reasons why ransomware attacks are becoming more common - because organizations say they'd rather not deal with the fallout that trails a breach or cyber-attack that goes public. Instead of getting law enforcement involved, they'd rather try their hands at making deals with their attackers first.


But paying ransom is short-sighted and is never a good idea. Why? Because cybercriminals rarely keep their end of the bargain. Organizations that negotiate with hackers often end up with lost data after paying a hefty ransom.


Lance James, who heads up cyber-intelligence at consultancy Deloitte & Touche, says most businesses that pay ransoms never have their data restored or their encrypted files decrypted.


During his presentation at Information Security Media Group's Fraud Summit in Atlanta, James discussed ransomware cases he has investigated. He noted that in most of those cases, businesses paid the ransom and then the attackers disappeared, never fulfilling their end of the negotiating bargain.


Of course, organizations should prepare for these types of attacks by taking steps now to ensure they have data and drive backups, and that they have strong multifactor authentication requirements for access to servers, in the event an employee's credentials are hijacked during one of these attacks.


But businesses also need to spend more time educating their staff about how ransomware attacks work, why these attacks are waged, and why reporting these attacks to law enforcement, rather than trying to handle them internally, is so critical.

The Attack Strategy

Ransomware attacks are waged in two parts. First, a PC or mobile device is infected with malware that locks the corporate user out or encrypts files so that the user can longer access them. Then a ransom is demanded through an automated message that appears on the device's screen. The user is told he or she has a limited amount of time to pay the ransom before the device will be wiped clean or the files will be erased.


The tools for these attacks are easy to buy and technical support for waging the attacks is inexpensive.


Law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have advised consumers and businesses to immediately report ransomware schemes when they occur.


But security researchers say that, despite of those warnings, many businesses are opting to either pay the ransom or are engaging in direct negotiations with their attackers instead of getting the authorities involved.

Willingness to Negotiate

A new study from cyber-intelligence firm ThreatTrack Security finds that 40 percent of security professionals believe their organizations have been targeted by a ransomware attack. Of those that believe they've been targeted, 55 percent say that when under attack, they are willing to negotiate a ransom in exchange for the release of corporate data or files.


ThreatTrack's research also finds that one in three security pros would recommend to upper management that their companies negotiate a ransom to see if they could avoid public disclosure of a breach involving stolen data or files that have been encrypted as part of the attack.


In fact, 66 percent of those surveyed by ThreatTrack say they fear negative reactions from customers and/or employees whose data was compromised in a breach if those customers or employees were to learn that their organizations chose not to negotiate with cybercriminals for the return of data.


ThreatTrack's survey includes responses from 250 U.S. security professionals at companies with 500 to 2,500 employees.

Beware of a Quick Fix

When it comes to ransomware attacks waged against corporations, many victimized organizations see paying the criminals what they want as the easiest way to make the problem go away.


But criminals rarely hold up their end of the bargain, so negotiating with anyone who is demanding a ransom is just a bad idea.

Obviously, more education, from the CEO down to the employee, is needed. But we also need a shift in the corporate culture, with an emphasis on looking beyond a "quick fix" for avoiding breach publicity.

Information sharing with peers can play a critical role as well. The more we talk about these attacks and share the techniques used, the more we can learn about how to defend our networks and shield our employees from falling victim to the phishing schemes that are often used to infect systems in the first place.


Security vendors need to step up their efforts here, too. Rather than just supplying intrusion detection, they also need to provide some good-old-fashioned education.

more...
Ivan Garcia-Hidalgo's curator insight, April 8, 2015 1:33 PM

Ransomware: The Right Response #InfoSec #cybersecurity

Scoop.it!

Why Cyber Security Is All About The Right Hires

Why Cyber Security Is All About The Right Hires | IT Support and Hardware for Clinics | Scoop.it

The United Kingdom has estimated the global cyber security industry to be worth around US$200 billion per annum, and has created a strategy to place UK industry at the forefront of the global cyber security supply base, helping countries to combat cybercrime, cyber terrorism and state-sponsored espionage.

Likewise, the United States government is facilitating trade missions to emerging markets for companies that provide cyber security, critical infrastructure protection, and emergency management technology equipment and services with the goal of increasing US exports of these products and services.

Meanwhile, Australia is going through yet another iteration of a domestic cyber security review. Australia can’t afford to wait any longer to both enhance domestic capability and grasp international leadership.

The recent Australian debate about the government’s proposed data retention scheme has seen heavy focus on the security aspects of collecting, retaining and where authorised, distributing such data.

But much of this debate masks the broader issue facing the information security industry.

Failing to keep up

The constant evolution of the online environment presents cyber threats which are constantly evolving with increasing volume, intensity and complexity.

While organisations of all shapes and sizes are considering spending more money on cyber security, the supply side of information security professionals is not keeping up with the current, let alone future demand. High schools are not encouraging enough students (particularly girls) to get interested in the traditional STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects. The higher education and vocational sectors are likewise not creating enough coursework and research options to appeal to aspiring students who are faced with evermore study options.

One example of the types of programs needed to address the shortage is the Australian Government’s annual Cyber Security Challenge which is designed to attract talented people to become the next generation of information security professionals. The 2014 Challenge saw 55 teams from 22 Australian higher education institutions take part. At 200 students, this is but a drop in the ocean given what is required.

Even for those who graduate in this field, there is a lack of formal mentoring programs (again particularly for girls), and those which are available are often fragmented and insufficiently resourced. The information security industry is wide and varied, catering for all interests and many skill sets. It is not just for technical experts but also for professionals from other disciplines such as management, accounting, legal, etc, who could make mid-career moves adding to the diversity of thinking within the industry.

More and more organisations are adopting technology to create productivity gains, improve service delivery and drive untapped market opportunities. Their success, or otherwise, will hinge on a large pool of talented information security professionals.

We need to attract more people into cyber security roles. Universities need to produce graduates who understand the relationship between the organisation they work for, its people, its IT assets and the kinds of adversaries and threats they are facing. The vocational education sector needs to train technically adept people in real-world situations where a hands-on approach will enable them to better combat cyber attacks in their future employment roles.

Industry associations should focus on their sector — analysing the emerging information security trends and issues, and the governance surrounding information security strategy — to determine their own unique skills gap.

The government should develop a code of best practice for women in information security in collaboration with industry leaders, promoting internal and external mentoring services.


Via Paulo Félix
more...
No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Brave New World: The Future of Cyberspace & Cybersecurity

Brave New World: The Future of Cyberspace & Cybersecurity | IT Support and Hardware for Clinics | Scoop.it

“Since this is a challenge that we can only meet together, I’m announcing that next month we’ll convene a White House summit on cybersecurity and consumer protection. It’s a White House summit where we’re not going to do it at the White House; we’re going to go to Stanford University. And it’s going to bring everybody together — industry, tech companies, law enforcement, consumer and privacy advocates, law professors who are specialists in the field, as well as students — to make sure that we work through these issues in a public, transparent fashion.” – President Barack Obama, Jan. 13, 2015.

The future of cyberspace and cybersecurity has been debated by many theorists and academicians have rendered opinions and studies on the topic. Cyberspace and cybersecurity issues have retaken the center stage of national and homeland security discourse after having taken a sideline to the natural reaction against al-Qaida’s 9/11 attack on the homeland. Despite the renewed sense of purpose and the recognized need to mitigate the ills found in cyberspace, the issue of cybersecurity and the way ahead remain as unclear and obscure since these same theorists and academicians were predicting an “electronic Pearl Harbor” in the 1990s and the events leading up to the hype posed by the Y2K bug.

The Obama administration’s renewed sense of purpose in dealing with cybersecurity issues by calling for the Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection at Stanford University promises to reinvigorate the discussion on a vital topic of national security. That said, this initiative also sounds oddly familiar to similar initiatives from past administrations voicing similar concerns.

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley portrayed a dystopian future where mankind was largely driven by the need for pleasure as a means to distract them from the weightier issues of their everyday lives. Huxley also stated one universal truism in that, “Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted.”

In terms of cybersecurity, what have we taken for granted? The renewed focus on cyberspace and security issues, while laudable in the sense that it can promise a debate on issues that must be addressed, will ultimately fail if it does not fundamentally address the question: What are we taking for granted in terms of our understanding of cyberspace and cybersecurity? In other words, are we framing the current debate on flawed conceptions of the issue in general? Are our assumptions flawed? Without considering some of these questions, we risk missing the true and weightier questions that we need to address on an issue that is constantly changing in terms of its impact on humanity.

The question before us is a simple one, but harder in terms of envisioning or defining. As Anthony Codevilla and Paul Seabury clearly stated in their book War: Ends and Means: “Strategy is a fancy word for a road map for getting from here to there, from the situation at hand to the situation one wishes to attain.” While this does not mean that we need to quickly create another national strategy on cybersecurity or cyberspace with glossy photos and sweeping language that promises a utopian future, it does mean that we need to fundamentally address the more difficult question first, “What do we ultimately need to attain in terms of cybersecurity?”

In this sense, President Obama’s speech on the future of cyber issues is appropriately framed in that this really is a challenge that we can only meet together. Envisioning the future in a world that will become increasingly dominated by technology and the Digital Age also addresses the type of future that we want to create for subsequent generations. In short, what future are we giving our children and our grandchildren? While blatantly sophomoric, as a parent and grandparent, it also happens to be true.

By envisioning our future, we are forced to recognize where we are. The continued reports on data breaches, identity theft, insufficient cybersecurity protections for health care records, controversies over data retention by the U.S. government and private industry, terrorist recruitment via social media, and the implications of active targeting by foreign entities on U.S. intellectual property are just a few of the many concerns that define the cyberspace issue in the present age.

To date, we have embarked on a journey with no destination. We have not chartered the course to take us to where we want to go. As such, while we must bring national security specialists, policy-makers, private industry, academicians and civil liberty advocates together, we also need to recognize that these issues are the result of failed initiatives and incremental approaches to the overall topic of cyberspace and cybersecurity in general. If this incremental approach to cybersecurity remains unchecked, our generation will be the first to face the brave new world of cyberspace defined by the nefarious drivers that are presently framing the topic. As the noted philosopher, John Stuart Mill appropriately stated, “When we engage in a pursuit, a clear and precise conception of what we are pursuing would seem to be the first thing we need, instead of the last we are to look forward to.”

While the answers to this basic truism can take on a highly technical tone in terms of the development of cybersecurity standards, technologies and processes, the true nature of the answer centers on the ideals and cultural norms that we wish to preserve while advancing into the future that will be defined by technology. How do we preserve privacy in the Digital Age? What type of culture do we wish to establish for ourselves—innocent until proven guilty or questionable until we can verify who you are? What is the role of the government in terms of ensuring security and where does the responsibility for the private sector begin in terms of its obligation to protect its intellectual property?

The answers to these questions represent but a fraction of the answers that are necessary to define our future. The answers to these questions, however, are the ones that begin to define the parameters for how we get from here to there. The sooner we engage in this dialogue, the better off we will be in defining that future for subsequent generations.




Via Paulo Félix
more...
No comment yet.