Eliana Willis

The private health services industry is once again the sector with the highest number of reported data breaches in Australia, accounting for 18% of all breaches notified to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) during the latter half of 2021. Out of the total 464 data breach notifications sent to the OAIC during the six months to December, private health service providers reported 83 of them. Finance filed the second most with 56, while legal, accounting, and management services rounded out the top three with 51. The 464 data breaches received by the information commissioner under the Notifiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme marked a 6% increase when compared to the first half of 2021. Looking at the data breaches notified to the commissioner during this period, malicious or criminal attacks remained as the leading source of breaches, accounting for 256 notifications. Despite malicious or criminal attacks being the biggest reason for data breaches, the 256 notifications are a 9% decrease from the previous period. At the same time, there was a significant rise in breaches due to human error, which increased by 43% to 190, after a dip in the previous period. System faults, meanwhile, were the source of 4% of data breaches during the period. Unpacking the top causes of human error breaches notified to the OAIC, 43% of them were due to personal information being emailed to the wrong recipient, 21% were due to unintended release, while 8% arose from people losing paperwork or data storage devices. Most breaches, 85%, involved contact information such as an individual’s name, home address, phone number or email address. Identity information such as date of birth, passport details and driver licence details were exposed in 40% of data breaches. Financial details, such as bank account and credit card numbers, were involved in 39% of breaches.

The NDB scheme has been in operation since early 2018, with Information Commissioner Angelene Falk saying she now expects organisations to have strong accountability measures in place to prevent and manage data breaches in line with legal requirements and community expectations. Despite this expectation, Falk noted that some organisations have continued to fall short of the scheme’s assessment and notification requirements. For example, 11% of organisations that experienced system faults did not become aware of the incident for over a year. “Delays in assessment and notification reduce the opportunities for an individual to take steps to protect themselves from harm,” Falk said. “If organisations wish to build trust with customers, then it is essential they use best practice to minimise data breaches and, when they do occur, they put individuals at the centre of their response.” Last month, the OAIC called for more data accountability measures in light of the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) seeking consultation for its review of the Privacy Act. The AGD began its review into the country’s Privacy Act at the end of 2020 as part of the Commonwealth’s response to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Digital Platforms Inquiry, which found the laws needed to be updated to adequately protect consumers and their data. Among the measures being pushed by the OAIC is a central obligation to collect, use, and disclose personal information fairly and reasonably for entities under the scope of Australia’s Privacy Principles. Related Coverage More

Business email compromise (BEC), a multi-billion dollar subset of phishing threats, might need a new name because the scams are no longer just about email. The FBI warns that scammers have ramped up video meetings as a tool to trick unsuspecting victims into handing over their money.Virtual meeting tools like Microsoft Teams and Zoom were the big winners of video during the pandemic. And where users go, unfortunately the scammers follow. BEC usually relies on fake, spoofed or compromised email domains to relay messages to targets with the aim of fooling them into making a wire transfer. The scams are technically simple but are often peppered with carefully constructed backstory conducted via email that fools even well-trained employees. It is the top category of cybercrime measured by funds lost, which totalled $1.8 billion in 2020 based on cases reported to the FBI. BEC dwarfs reported ransomware losses.       But BEC is not just about email. The FBI’s Internet Crime Center (IC3) says it has seen a surge in BEC scams using video meetings as the forum to communicate. This happened between 2019 and 2021, corresponding to the world’s shift to video meetings as we all adjusted to the COVID-19 pandemic and remote working. Video might not seem the most obvious medium for this type of scam because meetings require a physical presence and not just some text in email. But apparently video works when used in combination with email, which attackers are using to insert themselves in a subsequent trusted video conversation. “Criminals began using virtual meeting platforms to conduct more BEC related scams due to the rise in remote work because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused more workplaces and individuals to conduct routine business virtually,” the FBI said. The BEC scam with video does still involve email as part of reconnaissance. The attacker compromises employee emails and “inserts themselves in workplace meetings via virtual meeting platforms to collect information on a business’s day-to-day operations,” the FBI notes.

The scammer can also break into an employer’s email, such as that of the CEO, and send spoofed emails to employees “instructing them to initiate transfers of funds, as the CEO claims to be occupied in a virtual meeting and unable to initiate a transfer of funds via their own computer.”Scammers may also ask employees to participate in a virtual meeting platform where the criminal will insert a still picture of the CEO with no audio, or “deep fake” audio, and claim their video/audio is not properly working. “They then proceed to instruct employees to initiate transfers of funds via the virtual meeting platform chat or in a follow-up email,” the FBI said.BEC scams defy a clean definition because they can involve outsiders or insiders and often require just one legitimate officer to make an authorized transfer under false scenarios concocted by the scammer, such as an urgent email from a financial controller to a subordinate on a Friday afternoon. The FBI does offer several tips that employers should take note of. It’s a tough one for employers when employees can use Teams, Zoom, Google Meet, Slack or even Discord to have a video meeting. Employers and employees should, for example, “confirm the use of outside virtual meeting platforms not normally utilized in your internal office setting,” says the FBI. The FBI also recommends implementing two-factor or multi-factor authentication (MFA) to verify requests for changes in account information. MFA might slow processes down but it does work and should be used for high-value accounts. Microsoft says only a fifth of organizations enable MFA for enterprise email accounts in 2021.  The FBI’s advice contains somewhat obvious advice about protecting financial details that may be forgotten during the normal course of business with trusted partners, including checking the URLs in emails, waiting out for hyperlinks, and sharing login credentials. The FBI’s full list of dos and don’ts include:Confirm the use of outside virtual meeting platforms not normally utilized in your internal office setting.Use secondary channels or two-factor authentication to verify requests for changes in account information.Ensure the URL in emails is associated with the business/individual it claims to be from.Be alert to hyperlinks that may contain misspellings of the actual domain name.Refrain from supplying login credentials or personal information of any sort via email.  Verify the email address used to send emails, especially when using a mobile or handheld device, by ensuring the sender’s address appears to match who it is coming from.Ensure the settings in employees’ computers are enabled to allow full email extensions to be viewed.Monitor your personal financial accounts on a regular basis for irregularities, such as missing deposits.  More

NIST and university researchers have proposed a new computational model for assessing cybersecurity costs in network protection.

The larger the network, the more opportunities there may be for threat actors to infiltrate, cause damage, or conduct theft. Today’s corporate networks often provide a vast attack surface including Internet of Things (IoT) devices, mobile products, remote work tools, on-prem and off-prem services, and cloud systems.  It may be a challenge for businesses to work out what the most important areas are in terms of cybersecurity investment, but a new computational model could take out some of the guesswork.  Authored by US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) researchers Van Sy Mai, Richard La, and Abdella Battou, a new paper published in IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, titled “Optimal Cybersecurity Investments in Large Networks Using SIS Model: Algorithm Design,” proposes “a way to determine optimum investments needed to minimize the costs of securing these networks, providing recovery from infections and repairing their damage.” The algorithm was designed with pandemic and disease tracking as inspiration. Viruses can spread through a population with no immunity through social contact and digital viruses can also spread through networks and points of system-to-system contact if no protection is in place.  “A virus/malware infection in one system can spread internally, attacking other systems, potentially impacting the overall system,” NIST says. “The problem is similar to that of the spread of diseases in social networks.”

The model uses datasets based on a network’s long-term behavior to generate key performance metrics in analyzing large network systems and risk areas.  Whereas vaccine rate tracking can be used to measure the impact of protection on a pandemic’s risk level and spread, in this study, a time-averaged security cost was imposed in protecting different elements of a network with the overall aim being the development of cybersecurity investment strategies.  The researchers’ “susceptible-infected-susceptible” (SIS) model considered investments, economic loss, and recovery requirements caused by malware infections.  Four algorithms assess network probabilities of being breached, the likely rates of spread, how long — and how much it would cost — to repair the damage, and the expense associated with full recovery.  These assessments were then compared to the model’s investment strategies, including network monitoring and diagnostics to generate recommendations for the ‘optimal’ areas money should be spent in protecting a network.  This study may highlight how machine learning could be harnessed to provide a foundation for cybersecurity investments in the future. It could also become a valuable tool for enterprise users in the future, who are facing an average cost of at least $4 million due to a data breach today.   In related news this month, NIST has been working on improved product labeling for IoT devices and software to improve cybersecurity education and to help consumers make more informed choices.  Previous and related coverage Have a tip? Get in touch securely via WhatsApp | Signal at +447713 025 499, or over at Keybase: charlie0 More

According to analyst firm IDC, overall security spending is expected to reach nearly $1 billion in Brazil this year, an increase of 10% in relation to 2020.

Government

Of that total, spending on security solutions will reach $860 million, the analyst said, with cloud security becoming a key area of focus for Brazilian IT decision-makers. According to IDC, 2022 will see firms dealing with an increasing number of cyberattacks, a trend that has gathered pace since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The research added that managed detection and response (MDR) services will continue to gain ground as the demand for skilled professionals intensifies.The shortage of information security skills is one of the most significant issues facing Brazilian IT organizations, mentioned by 40% of the businesses polled by IDC. In addition, 57% said they will rely on external help to manage and operate environments with modern cybersecurity solutions due to the shortage of professionals to boost internal teams.With over 33 million intrusion attempts in 2021, Brazil is only behind the US, Germany and the UK in terms of ransomware attacks, according to a cyber threats report released by SonicWall. In 2020, Brazil ranked ninth in the same ranking, with 3,8 million ransomware attacks. Also: Investment in data privacy in Brazil falls below global averageAccording to the SonicWall report, Brazil also stands out in terms of malware attacks, which have increased over 61% in 2021, with 210 million attacks in 2021, compared to approximately 130 million seen in the prior year.

According to a separate study released in December 2021 by PwC, the vast majority of Brazilian companies plan to boost their cybersecurity budgets in 2022. The study noted the increase in cyberattacks against local organizations was among the key concerns of senior decision-makers. The study suggests that 45% of Brazilian companies estimate an increase of 10% or more in investments in data security, compared to 26% worldwide. Only 14% of Brazilian leaders expressed the same levels of concern in relation to cybersecurity in 2020, against 8% worldwide. In 2021, 50% of the companies polled by PwC claimed to have allocated up to 10% of their technology budget to security-related actions. More

CISA has published a guide containing free cybersecurity resources and services that may be valuable in incident response. 

Special feature

Cyberwar and the Future of Cybersecurity

Today’s security threats have expanded in scope and seriousness. There can now be millions — or even billions — of dollars at risk when information security isn’t handled properly.

Read More

The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is responsible for monitoring, managing, and reducing risk to the country’s critical infrastructure. The federal agency is also known for issuing alerts relating to high-profile data breaches and vulnerability disclosures. Last month, CISA warned organizations to shore up their defenses in light of the cyberattacks endured by Ukraine’s government, in which IT systems were disrupted, and government-owned website domains were defaced by suspected Russian cybercriminals.  As part of an ongoing initiative to improve the cybersecurity posture of US infrastructure providers, critical services, and state to local governments, CISA has compiled a guide containing advice, resources, and links to services that can help organizations reduce their risk exposure as well as deal with the aftermath of a security incident.  While CISA is keen to emphasize that the federal agency doesn’t endorse the resources for specific use cases, the guide is separated into categories: foundational measures, how to reduce the likelihood of a “damaging” cyberattack; the steps to take to detect an intrusion, incident response, and resources for maximizing resilience to destructive attacks. Also: CISA issues advisory warning of critical vulnerabilities in Airspan Networks MimosaThe list contains a mixture of open source tools and software, services offered by public and private cybersecurity organizations, as well as resources provided by CISA itself for free. 

The federal agency first recommends that companies take basic steps to improve their security, including the implementation of patch cycles to fix known software vulnerabilities, implementing two-factor or multi-factor authentication (2FA/MFA), upgrading legacy and out-of-support software, and replacing default or old passwords. After tackling the above steps, CISA then recommends that organizations check out the additional categories.  The resources include pointers to phishing assessment services, remote penetration tests, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) protection, Project Shield, repositories for threat data, antivirus tools, forensics software, and backup services, among others.   Skill levels for each service or tool are separated by way of basic or advanced knowledge requirements.  CISA’s list will be continually updated, and the agency intends to create a process for organizations to submit free tools and services for consideration in the future.  See also Have a tip? Get in touch securely via WhatsApp | Signal at +447713 025 499, or over at Keybase: charlie0 More

Scam artists have taken advantage of a contract migration initiative to swindle NFTs out of users in an opportunistic phishing attack.

Last week, NFT marketplace OpenSea announced the rollout of contract migrations and an upgrade to make sure inactive, old NFT listings on Ethereum expire safely and to allow OpenSea to “offer new safety features in the future.”The contract migration timeline was set from February 18 to February 25.  NFT holders are required to make the change, and OpenSea published a guide to assist them. After the deadline, any listings that were not migrated would expire, although they could be re-listed after this window without further fees.  However, an attacker saw an opportunity to cash in. Check Point Research has suggested that phishing emails were sent to users, linking them to fraudulent websites. “Some hackers took advantage of the upgrade process and decided to scam NFT users by using the same email from OpenSea and resending it to the OpenSea victims,” the researchers said. Also: How the initial access broker market leads to ransomware attacks

Marketplace users were reportedly urged to click a link and sign a malicious transaction that was crafted to look like a legitimate OpenSea request.  According to the researchers, the attacker created their contract prior to the transition and made use of atomicMatch_, a form of request “capable of stealing all victim NFTS in one transaction.”The wallet connected to the phishing attack held over two million dollars after some of the stolen NFTs were sold, CPR noted, although, at the time of writing, just over $8,000 is left in the account. In total, there have been over 350 transactions from this wallet address, including deposits and withdrawals.  Originally, it was believed that 32 users had their NFTs stolen after falling prey to the phishing attack. “The attack doesn’t appear to be active at this point — we haven’t seen any malicious activity from the attacker’s account in 2 hours,” OpenSea CEO Devin Finzer said on February 20. “Some of the NFTs have been returned. […] We are not aware of any recent phishing emails that have been sent to users, but at this time, we do not know which website was tricking users into maliciously signing messages.” In an update, OpenSea said its team has been working “around the clock” to investigate, and this number of suspected victims has been narrowed down to 17. “Our original count included anyone who had *interacted* with the attacker, rather than those who were victims of the phishing attack,” OpenSea said.  It has now been over 22 hours since the last fraudulent transaction made in the attacker’s wallet.  Nadav Hollander, OpenSea CTO, published a Twitter thread containing the organization’s current understanding of the attack, which the firm does not believe originated from OpenSea.  “All of the malicious orders contain valid signatures from the affected users, indicating that they did sign an order somewhere, at some point in time,” Hollander said. “However, none of these orders were broadcasted to OpenSea at the time of signing.” In addition, the orders were not executed against the new Wyvern 2.3 contract.  Hollander commented: “32 users [note: now estimated to be 17] had NFTs stolen over a relatively short time period. This is extremely unfortunate but suggests a targeted attack as opposed to a systemic issue. This information, coupled with our discussions with impacted users and investigation by security experts, suggests a phishing operation that was executed ahead of the deprecation of the 2.2 contract given the impending invalidation of these collected malicious orders. Even though it appears the attack was made from outside OpenSea, we are actively helping affected users and discussing ways to provide them additional assistance.” Cybersecurity expert Dan Guido also highlighted the inherent security issues with wallets and their exposure to phishing campaigns.  OpenSea continues to investigate.  In other recent NFT news, Fortinet researchers have warned that cyberattackers are jumping on the NFT hype to spread BitRAT malware. See alsoHave a tip? Get in touch securely via WhatsApp | Signal at +447713 025 499, or over at Keybase: charlie0 More