STE WILLIAMS

A large proportion of the utility companies responsible for power generation, water supply, and other critical civil functions are unprepared for a cyberattack on the operational side of their business, despite more than half of utility professionals expecting an attack on critical infrastructure in the next year, according to a report published on October 7. 

The report draws conclusions from a survey conducted by the Ponemon Institute and sponsored by industrial control firm Siemens, which found that more than half of respondents had suffered a “shutdown or operational data loss” in the past year, and a quarter of firms had been the target of a “mega attack” involving a nation-state actor. 

Despite the worries, only 42% of utility professionals feel that their organization is ready for a cyberattack, while more than a third — 35% — do not even have a plan in place to respond to an attack on their operational technology, the survey found.

“Industrial cybersecurity has become one of the new risk frontiers,” says Leo Simonovich, vice president and global head of industrial cyber for Siemens. “An attack targeting a power plant can force a shutdown or, in the worst case, a safety event. And while the frequency of these attacks has increased, utility organizations’ readiness remains fairly low.”

The Ponemon Institute surveyed 1,726 utility professionals, about two-thirds of whom were technicians or managers, with directors and supervisors making up another third, and senior executives making up 6% of the respondents. 

The Siemens-funded survey is not the only one to find concerns among professionals with the readiness of the world’s utilities. A second survey, conducted by Dimensional Research on behalf of security firm Tripwire, found that 93% of industrial-control system (ICS) professionals worried that an attack could cause downtime. While almost three-quarters of firms had invested in cybersecurity, half of the ICS professionals thought that the investments were not enough.

“Cyberattacks against critical infrastructure and manufacturers pose a real threat to the safety, productivity, and quality of operations,” Kristen Poulos, vice president and general manager of industrial cybersecurity at Tripwire, said in a statement. “In these environments, where virtual and physical converge, cyber events can interfere with an operator’s ability to view, monitor, or control their processes.”

Cybersecurity for operation technology (OT) and networks is not simple. Utilities have to contend with two aspects of their infrastructure that most companies do not have: A much longer useful lifetime for devices and the potential for physical damage to be caused by cyberattacks.

Siemens’ Simonovich likens the issues to real estate, with brownfield (previously developed) land having needed infrastructure but often with legacy problems, and greenfield (undeveloped) land requiring more construction but that doesn’t have baked-in issues. 

“You have a brownfield problem with existing assets, where digital has been bolted on top,” he says. “And then you have greenfield problems of digital-native devices associated with renewables, but also highly distributed, decentralized, and hyper-intelligent. Because of their nature, they are more difficult to secure.”

The lack of visibility — only half of companies have the lion’s share, 70%, of their infrastructure documented, according to Tripwire’s report — is already causing problems.

The destructive WannaCry and NotPetya attacks, for example, affected 25% of utilities, according to Siemens’ report. Approximately 30% of attacks on operational technology are not detected, and breach studies have shown that the longer that an attack is not detected, the more significant and costly the damage. 

Utilities are also plagued by another issue that they have in common with the industry at large: a shortage of knowledgeable cybersecurity workers. While the rise of sophisticated attacks is considered the top threat that utilities have to overcome, more than half of those surveyed found the lack of skilled personnel to be a serious issue.

Overall, utilities have many of the same problems as companies in general, but because they represent critical infrastructure upon which companies and consumers rely, any attack could have much more serious impact.

“With these old power plants, they thought they were safe because they were air-gapped,” says Simonovich. “Now, many of them are connected, and most of these assets have not been patched for years.”

Related Content:

• US Utilities Hit with Phishing Attack
• Triton Attackers Seen Scanning US Power Grid Networks
• A Safer IoT Future Must Be a Joint Effort
• Digital Transformation Exposes Operational Technology Critical Infrastructure
• New Malware Campaign Targets US Petroleum Companies

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading’s new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today’s top story: “Can the Girl Scouts Save the Moon from Cyberattack?“

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT’s Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/security-management/utilities-operational-networks-continue-to-be-vulnerable/d/d-id/1336035?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Today is the second Tuesday of the month, and Microsoft is right on schedule with 59 security fixes, nine of which are considered Critical in severity.

None of the vulnerablities were previously known or exploited, and 49 are ranked Important and one as Moderate. 

The latest release affects Windows, Internet Explorer, Edge, ChakraCore, Microsoft Office and Office Services and Web Apps, Microsoft Dynamics 365, SQL Server Management Studio, Windows Update Assistant, and Open Source Software. It’s a smaller-volume roundup compared with many Patch Tuesdays of late: September’s fixed 80 bugs and August’s patched 93, including a wormable remote code execution (RCE) flaw. In July, Microsoft addressed 77 vulnerabilities.

October continued the trend of patching remote desktop vulnerabilities, which have been common the past four months. CVE-2019-1333 is an RCE flaw that exists in the Remote Desktop Client when a user connects with a malicious server. An attacker who successfully exploited the bug could view, change, or delete data; install programs; or create new accounts with user rights.

To exploit CVE-2019-1333, an attacker would need to control a server and convince a target to connect using a social engineering scam, DNS poisoning, or a man-in-the-middle attack. They could also compromise a legitimate server, host malicious code on it, and wait for someone to connect to it. Today’s patch corrects how Remote Desktop Client handles connection requests.

While this RCE vulnerability is only being disclosed today and attackers haven’t yet taken advantage of it, Microsoft warns exploitation is more likely for this one. The patch should be applied “immediately,” says Richard Melick, senior technical product manager at Automox, even though this bug isn’t as severe as the remote desktop flaws disclosed back in August.

“Lateral access through a network only requires one compromised machine and with this capability in the hands of an attacker, their actions would be masked longer due to the escalated access,” Melick says of the implications of this vulnerability in the wrong hands. Even so, the requirement for attackers to convince a target to connect makes this tough to exploit.

Important-ranked patch CVE-2019-1326 is a Remote Desktop Protocol denial-of-service bug that exists when an attacker connects to the target system using RDP and sends specially crafted requests. If successful, they could cause the RDP service on a target system to stop responding.

Microsoft also re-released CVE-2019-1367, which was first deployed on Sept. 23 as an out-of-band patch to address a scripting engine memory corruption vulnerability in Internet Explorer that was under active attack. The bug could let an attacker execute arbitrary code at the same privilege level as a legitimate user and in doing so, install programs, view and change data, and create new accounts with full user rights while the legitimate user is logged in as an admin.

The update to this patch released today addresses a known printing issue some users might have experienced after installing any of the Security Updates, IE Cumulative Updates, or Monthly Rollups released on Sept. 23 or Oct. 3 for Internet Explorer 9, 10, or 11, or Windows.

For those who use the Azure App Service, another RCE vulnerability worth noting is CVE-2019-1372. This exists when Azure App Service/Antares on the Azure Stack fails to check the length of a buffer before copying the memory to it. An attacker who successfully exploited this could allow an unprivileged function run by the user to execute code in the context of NT Authority system and escape the sandbox. The patch ensures Azure App Services sanitizes user inputs.

“If you have the Azure App Service deployed to your Azure Stack, this patch should be prioritized,” says Qualys director of product management Jimmy Graham.

Related Content:

• 6 Active Directory Security Tips for Your Poor, Neglected AD
• Beyond the Horde: The Uptick in Targeted Attacks (And How to Fight Back)
• Cybercrime: AI’s Growing Threat
• Rethinking Cybersecurity Hiring: Dumping Resumes Other ‘Garbage’

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading’s new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today’s top story: “Can the Girl Scouts Save the Moon from Cyberattack?“

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance Technology, where she covered financial … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/endpoint/microsoft-issues-9-critical-security-patches-/d/d-id/1336036?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

A recently detected Iranian cyberattack targeting a US presidential campaign may well be a harbinger of what’s in store for political parties and election systems in the run-up to next year’s general elections.

Last Friday Microsoft disclosed it had observed significant threat activity over the past two months by Phosphorus, a threat group believed linked to the Iranian government. Phosphorus, which is also known as APT25 and Charming Kitten, made over 2,700 attempts to break into specific email accounts belonging to Microsoft customers. In many cases, Phosphorus used information about the targets — including phone numbers and secondary email addresses — to try and infiltrate their email accounts.

In the end, Phosphorus attacked 241 targeted email accounts and eventually managed to compromise four of them.

In a blog Friday, Microsoft corporate vice president Tom Burt described the targeted accounts as being associated with a US presidential campaign, current and former US government officials, journalists covering politics, and Iranian nationals residing outside the country. The four accounts that were actually breached, however, were not connected to the presidential campaign or to the government officials.

Bart did not offer any insight on possible motives for the attacks. But he said Microsoft was releasing the information as part of its effort to be transparent about nation-state sponsored cyberattacks aimed at disrupting democratic processes.

Concerns over such attacks have been rampant since 2016, when news emerged of Russian hackers breaking into a system belonging to the Democratic National Committee as well as their attacks on state election infrastructure around the country.

In a heavily redacted report published in July, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Russian hackers in 2015 and 2016 likely tried to break into election systems in all 50 states. The committee said Russian government-affiliated cyber actors “conducted an unprecedented level of activity against state election infrastructure in the run up to the 2016 U.S. election.”

The attacks exposed critical vulnerabilities in election infrastructure at the state and local level, including insecure voter registration databases and aging voting machines that were susceptible to exploitation. News of the attacks have also promoted the impression that US voting systems are insecure, which is what Moscow might have wanted to achieve in the first place, the report said.

More Attacks on the Way
Many of the vulnerabilities from 2016 still exist and will likely be targeted in coming months by cybergroups based in nations that are hostile to US interests, security researchers say.

“We should expect to see attacks against election systems, elected officials, and candidates to only increase as the 2020 elections get closer,” says John Pescatore, director of emerging security trends at the SANS Institute.

The US, UK, France, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea all have very active espionage programs against each other and other targets, says Pescatore, a former NSA analyst. In recent years, election and census systems have become part of the espionage mission for these programs, he says. “Such attacks are just a normal part of espionage these days [for them],” Pescatore notes.

The good news is that despite relative inaction at the federal level, many states are taking positive steps to address gaps in their election infrastructure with help from members of the IT vendor and security community. “While the presidential election is for a national candidate, it is really run like 50-plus state elections that get added together at the end,” Pescatore says. “[So] the local efforts are really the most important.”  

Joseph Carson, chief security scientist at Thycotic, views the recent Iranian cyberattacks as a response to US sanctions and other actions against the government in that country. “Moving forward, I believe that cyberattacks are going to get more aggressive in the lead-up to the US presidential election,” Carson says.

The attacks are more likely to target President Trump due to his political stance and recent sanctions against Iran. “Like most cyberattacks, attribution is going to be difficult, and many of these cyberattacks will appear to come from other countries, or even from within the US, occurring from compromised, poorly protected systems,” he predicts.

Related Content:

• Iran Caught Targeting US Presidential Campaign Accounts
• Iranian Government Hackers Target US Veterans
• How China Russia Use Social Media to Sway the West
• 8 Ways Businesses Unknowingly Help Hackers

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading’s new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today’s top story: “Active Directory Security Tips for Your Poor, Neglected AD.”

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/iranian-cyberattack-on-us-presidential-campaign-could-be-a-sign-of-things-to-come/d/d-id/1336017?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

In the TV series The Walking Dead, zombies move with no clear direction, searching for food, and looking for their next victim. When the zombies find a point of vulnerability, they lock in on it and attack. Over the past two years, malware — including WannaCry and NotPetya — have invaded vulnerable targets in a similar way, scanning the Internet to find weak spots and causing considerable damage.

Beyond these somewhat random attacks, we’re also seeing a dramatic rise in targeted attacks on large organizations. The first quarter of 2019 saw a 195% increase in the number of ransomware attacks compared with the last quarter of 2018, and up to the time of writing this, the year has seen an increase of 500%. In other words, malware attacks now tend to operate less in a manner of “horde waves” and more as a targeted process, with advanced tools that can cause massive damage.

Information security managers are on alert, as too often attacks happen without any warning and can affect the organization quickly, leaving the security team with an urgent need to resolve problems that can expand and worsen by the second.

Unfortunately, the possibility of receiving real-time intelligence and indications of compromise (IoCs) during a direct point attack is slight to nonexistent. Information security platforms must now include real-time capabilities, including advanced robotic patch processes, artificial intelligence, and quick incidence response to new threats. These are the basis of the steps suggested below. I believe there are other solutions, but this protocol has been applied in practice and proven to be effective.

Back to Basics
Those who are responsible for cybersecurity must build a robust security patch process that can be implemented rapidly. Along with standard processes, we need an outbreak patch process that will allow organizations to react fast to critical vulnerability. This is no easy task for large enterprises, which have complicated enterprise resource planning systems and OT environments.

When we can’t react quickly or when the cycle of patch updates is long, we must develop compensatory controls that will help manage the exposure to risk. These controls must be tested to ensure their effectiveness.

Though this patch management effort may be regarded as complicated and Sisyphean — perhaps even as archaic and dated — when such endeavors are operated correctly, many organizations see success with them.

Real-Time Governance
In addition to the robust array of updates and compensatory controls, we must develop the ability to understand the exposure associated with specific vulnerabilities in real time or near real time. To support this task, organizations can build a governance platform that will scan networks and devices on a regular basis, along with maintaining a data lake that can run an analytic search for potential and real-time threats that have shown up.

Intelligence and Immediate Actions
Prior knowledge of intentional targeted attacks is almost nonexistent; nevertheless, there is quite a lot of information about recent known attacks throughout the network, when there is an IOC accessible.

Using the services of intelligence companies is mandatory, and we are obligated to gather information on every lead of an attack/new vulnerability, analyze its features and look for defense methods that will suit the revealed exposure. Closing and tightening a gap will not always be a technological option; therefore, enforcing an intermediate policy is needed to reduce time gaps that can lead to fast-spreading viruses and other attacks. 

“Special Forces” Team
Enterprises need a solid protocol for responding to threats that goes beyond the IT department and enlists the support of business units throughout the organization. During the early 1970s, during the Cold War, the White House held daily morning meetings with authorized officials in order to conclude whether or not the Russians would attack. Having daily briefings — or as needed — is as relevant today, when we are armed with exponentially more information, as it was over 50 years ago.

Daily risk analysis works best when the organization creates a special task force. Decision support systems should be embraced daily by this team and should include skilled functionaries from the different IT units and representatives from key business units whose data may be at the most risk of attack. By meeting daily (or ad hoc because of a new possible threat) and reviewing intelligence information alerts, these mission-critical teams can gather intel, analyze, and apply control tools to map and assess different risks. Once data analysis is established, the team should apply a solution/actions and follow up protocols through the different IT units and business units.

Cyber war is not a cold war. It is made up of continued threats, and it’s an extremely dynamic 24/7 challenge. As such, there is no replacement for teams, tools, and constant, daily vigilance.

Related Content:

• ‘Harvesting Attacks’ the Quantum Revolution
• Why You Need to Think About API Security
• Ransomware Strikes 49 School Districts Colleges in 2019
• 6 Questions to Ask Once You’ve Learned of a Breach

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading’s new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today’s top story: “Active Directory Security Tips for Your Poor, Neglected AD“

Ilan Abadi joined Teva Pharmaceutical Industries in May 2012 as Global CISO. In his current role, Ilan is in charge of establishing cybersecurity strategy and structure and managing ongoing cyber activities, including current and future security threats. Among his … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/beyond-the-horde-the-uptick-in-targeted-attacks-(and-how-to-fight-back)/a/d-id/1335947?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Image Source: Adobe Stock: leowolfert

ISO 27001. PCI DSS. GDPR. When it comes to business and security standards, it’s easy to get lost in the alphabet soup of acronyms.

How can you discern which ones are right for your organization? Start by asking some high-level questions as to what you hope to accomplish by adopting them – and how adhering to standards can help your growth, says Kushbu Pratap, a senior principal analyst at Gartner who covers risk and compliance.

“The most important questions to ask [are]: Are your customers asking for it, and do your stakeholders think a particular standard is important?” says Kushbu Pratap, a senior principal analyst at Gartner who covers risk and compliance.

Assuming the answers are yes, there are additional factors to think through before moving ahead with a strategy for compliance. The seven practical tips outlined in this feature will help. Heavily regulated organizations typically have special teams that work on these standards, but even for them, use this list as a chance to take a step back and better target your standards compliance and certification teams.

Steve Zurier has more than 30 years of journalism and publishing experience, most of the last 24 of which were spent covering networking and security technology. Steve is based in Columbia, Md. View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/endpoint/7-considerations-before-adopting-security-standards/d/d-id/1335983?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Business email compromise (BEC) ramped up 269% from last quarter to this quarter, according to Mimecast’s latest Email Security Risk Assessment (ESRA). This quarter showed a massive spike in emails containing dangerous file types, malware attachments, and spam in target inboxes.

The quarterly report reviewed more than 260 million emails from more than 480,000 users. Of the emails that were scanned by various email security systems and successfully delivered, 28.8 million were spam, 28,808 contained malware attachments, and 28,726 contained dangerous file types. More than 60,000 of these messages contained BEC, or impersonation fraud, scams.

BEC scams continue to plague organizations because they can easily slip past traditional security systems. Savvy attackers continue to build on their schemes with increasingly subtle strategies, too.For example, vendor email compromise (VEC), a newly discovered technique, involves the intruder sitting on a target network and observing communications to better craft fraudulent messages.

Read more details here.

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading’s new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today’s top story: “Active Directory Security Tips for Your Poor, Neglected AD“

Dark Reading’s Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/endpoint/business-email-compromise-attacks-spike-269-/d/d-id/1336020?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple