STE WILLIAMS

US lawmakers from both parties and houses of Congress have introduced a bill called the State Cyber Resiliency Act to increase resources to states and local governments for ensuring cybersecurity, reports GCN. The bill was introduced by Representatives Derek Kilmer and Barbara Comstock and Senators Mark Warner and Cory Gardner.

The grant program, say the bill’s sponsors, will increase resources to state and local government bodies so they can strengthen their cyber plans, develop a stronger cybersecurity workforce and fight threats. Currently less than 2% of IT budgets are dedicated to cybersecurity, they claim.

The sponsors backed their bill by citing a 2015 study that reported 50 percent of state and local government had experienced over six breaches the previous two years and added that 2016 had witnessed 200,000 personal voter records being compromised in Arizona and Illinois. This prompted the Department of Homeland Security to label the state voting infrastructure “critical infrastructure.”

Click here for more.

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: http://www.darkreading.com/operations/us-lawmakers-seek-grant-for-state-local-cybersecurity/d/d-id/1328322?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

It’s tempting to dismiss buzzwords as slang-y, cliché, and overused (and they are … literally). But in the security industry, both buzzwords and the latest terms the industry has coined to describe a new technology or put a new spin on an old one also provide barometer-like clues of where the industry may be heading. What it’s excited about. Or how it sorts the jaded veterans from the newbies. 

There were plenty of examples of the latest terms and buzzwords in full view at the RSA Conference in San Francisco last month. Here’s a look at some of the more prolific ones seen and heard there; it’s not an exhaustive list, so we’re counting on you to help us embellish it. What did we forget? Please let us know in the Comments section.

Terry Sweeney is a Los Angeles-based writer and editor who has covered technology, networking, and security for more than 20 years. He was part of the team that started Dark Reading and has been a contributor to The Washington Post, Crain’s New York Business, Red Herring, … View Full Bio

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/7-hot-security-terms-(and-buzzwords)-to-know/d/d-id/1328311?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

Adware and ad fraud are in basically the same business, and neither care very much how they make money as long as it keeps pouring in. But there are some major differences. To understand these differences let’s take a look at the separate entities.

Adware
Adware is any software application that shows advertisements while one of the components of the adware is running. The word is a contraction of advertising and software, and often just regarded as “advertising-supported freeware.”

With adware, consumers accept the well-known trade off of not having to pay for software in exchange for having to look at some advertisements in return. While this simple business model may appeal to many of us, there are definitely boundaries. We draw lines at the amount of advertisements, the moment and the way they are presented to us (consider for example,  in-game advertising), and the kind of advertisements. Pop-ups of an adult nature, for one,  may give those looking over your shoulder the wrong idea.

There are also some criteria that security vendors take into consideration when classifying adware:

• Do the advertisements disappear when you uninstall the software they came with?
• Was the user given a warning and a chance to opt out during install?
• What is the nature of the changes the adware makes on the affected system?
• How easy is it to remove under normal circumstances?
• What is the impact on users privacy?
• Does the adware grab permissions to update itself or install other similar programs?

This is why you will see (most) adware classified as potentially unwanted programs (PUPs), some as spyware, and others could even be classified as Trojans.

Ad fraud
Ad fraud is a type of fraud that lets advertisers pay for advertisements even though the number of impressions (the times that the advertisement has been seen) is enormously exaggerated. There are many different methods to achieve this:

• SEO fraud, where sites are artificially made to appear very popular so advertisers will pay high prices for advertisements nobody may ever see.
• Stacking or stuffing sites are filled with lots of advertisements. Sometimes they are on top of each other, or sometimes only one pixel big. When someone visits the site, all the advertisements register one impression.
• Domain spoofing is when the site where the advertisement is placed is different than the one the advertiser expected. He pays a high price for a site with low or no traffic.
• Click-fraud involves systems that are part of a botnet or have some other Trojan infection. Visitors are sent to a site or click on a URL. But despite the amount of impressions, the return value of the click is very low. The chance that the potential customer is mad at you, is bigger than the chance he’ll buy something.

The malware involved in this type of fraud is usually classified as a Trojan as the systems are remotely controlled and told to visit a site (to heighten the popularity) or click a URL (to register an impression). As you can imagine, hiring a botnet to do these tasks for you is a lot cheaper than owning and running large server-farms, although this happens as well. Ad fraudsters also sometimes pay people in low-income countries to do micro tasks for micro payment.

Both adware and ad fraud earn their money in the advertising business. But the means are different. While the main victims of adware are the users who may have knowingly installed advertising supported software, in the case of ad fraud the main victims are the advertisers,  even though unsuspecting users may be running click-bots or multi-purpose bots.

Was a Microsoft MVP in consumer security for 12 years running. Can speak four languages. Smells of rich mahogany and leather-bound books. View Full Bio

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/partner-perspectives/malwarebytes/adware-vs-ad-fraud-viva-la-difference!/a/d-id/1328317?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

A new Federal Trade Commission Office of Technology Research and Investigation (OTech) report shows most organizations aren’t fully utilizing the latest technology available to combat phishing, which is contributing to a growing distrust in email.

Email is a top attack vector for cybercriminals targeting the enterprise. Most major online businesses use email authentication to fight threats, but they could do more, experts say, by automatically telling servers to reject unauthenticated emails.

“One of the main concerns around email is it’s very effective — if it’s trusted,” says Alexander García-Tobar, CEO at ValiMail. “Trust has become a very large issue recently,” amid the increase in impersonation attacks.

OTech evaluated more than 500 businesses with “a significant online presence” and discovered most (86%) employ Sender Policy Framework (SPF), a domain-level authentication they can use to determine an IP address to send email, and DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM), which lets them use digital signatures to verify message authenticity.

Only one-third employ Domain Message Authentication Reporting Conformance (DMARC), a standard technology that verifies whether an email is truly from the domain it claims to be from. It instructs receiving servers to delete fraudulent messages upon arrival so users don’t see them, and only lets in authenticated emails. Part of the benefit is creating a whitelist of verified senders.

Organizations can also use DMARC to gather feedback on how scammers are misusing their information in phishing attacks. “The owner of a domain will be able to say, ‘these are all the people, all the servers across the world who try to send something as me,'” explains García-Tobar.

Of the businesses that have implemented DMARC, OTech discovered less than 10% are using the strongest available setting, which tells recipients to reject unauthenticated messages.

There are several reasons why adoption is lagging, García-Tobar says. First off, DMARC is not broadly known.

“There’s very low awareness of the DMARC standard,” which was compiled by technical committees and hasn’t had a strong marketing drive behind it. Awareness is on the uptick, however, thanks to adoption by tech giants like Google and Microsoft. The FTC recognizing DMARC’s importance is another sign awareness is starting to spread, he continues.

Companies aware of DMARC often struggle to propery deploy it. Yes, there are technical difficulties, but many problems stem from disagreement over what the corporate whitelist should include.

“It sounds easy to say, ‘I’m going to declare which servers are allowed to send [emails] as me, but it’s not actually that easy,” García-Tobar says. “This requires internal investigations and discussions about who is allowed to send as you.”

Because of this, it’s often difficult for large global organizations to define the whitelist. Until they have their technical details in place, many businesses end up with a DMARC record but no enforcement.

García-Tobar expects DMARC adoption to grow at a faster clip this year. As more businesses begin to use it, awareness will continue to spread, as will the desire to correctly implement the standard and use it well.

“People are starting to acknowledge that the way email is functioning today cannot continue if email is going to be an effective communication platform,” he explains. “The fact that we have a federal agency supporting DMARC is very encouraging.”

Related Content:

• 7 Hot Security Terms (and Buzzwords) to Know
• Attackers Employ Sneaky New Method to Control Trojans
• Malware Kits, Advertising Trojans Drive Mobile Risk

Kelly is an associate editor for InformationWeek. She most recently reported on financial tech for Insurance Technology, before which she was a staff writer for InformationWeek and InformationWeek Education. When she’s not catching up on the latest in tech, Kelly enjoys … View Full Bio

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/ftc-report-highlights-low-dmarc-adoption/d/d-id/1328325?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

CA Technologies today said it will acquire application security service firm Veracode for $614 million. 

Veracode, which celebrates its tenth anniversary this year, launched in 2007 with $19.5 million in venture capital funding and offering the industry’s first automated, on-demand security analysis services via a software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform.

The acquisition by CA is scheduled to close in the first quarter of fiscal year 2018, and is subject to regulatory approval. CA said Veracode will boost its position in the Secure DevOps market.

“Software is at the heart of every company’s digital transformation. Therefore, it’s increasingly important for them to integrate security at the start of their development processes, so they can respond to market opportunities in a secure manner,” said Ayman Sayed, CA Technologies president and chief product officer. “This acquisition will unify CA’s Security and DevOps portfolios with a SaaS-based platform that seamlessly integrates security into the software development process. Looking holistically at our portfolio, now with Veracode and Automic, we have accelerated the growth profile of our broad set of solutions. We now expect that the size of our growing solutions within our Enterprise Solutions portfolio will eclipse the more mature part of the Enterprise Solutions portfolio in FY19.”

Veracode was founded by famed security expert Chris Wysopal, and fellow former @stake executives Christien Rioux and Mike Pittenger. 

For more information on the acquisition, see CA’s blog.

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: http://www.darkreading.com/application-security/veracode-snapped-up-by-ca-technologies-in-$614-million-deal/d/d-id/1328328?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

Ransomware had a breakout year in 2016, making headlines as it affected everything from hospitals to police stations. At the same time, attacks against Internet of things (IoT) devices — home appliances, toys, cars, and more, all brimming with newly exploitable connectivity — have continued to proliferate.

Most information security professionals agree that ransomware and IoT hacks will continue to increase in frequency, but one less obvious development that could be on the horizon is a convergence of both of these attack methods. So, what could the implications of an IoT ransomware attack be?

To answer this question, we first need to consider the potential target of an IoT ransomware attack. Ransomware usually goes after computers and networks that house the mission-critical data necessary to maintain the day-to-day operations of a business. Such targeting ensures that once this data has been encrypted and rendered useless, the organization has adequate incentive to purchase the cryptocurrency (typically Bitcoin) being demanded by the hacker to release its data.

Luckily for us, many IoT devices don’t qualify as mission critical, as I doubt any parent is going to fork over a ransom to unlock their child’s Hello Barbie. But there are certain devices that perform critical functions and therefore could meet this criterion. As IoT becomes more widespread and increases in sophistication, the number of potentially lucrative targets will only increase. Unlike with traditional ransomware, attackers that hijack IoT devices can not only compromise the data collected through a device’s sensors, but could also render a critical device’s physical functions inaccessible — greatly increasing the chances that a victim will pay up.

One device that is currently ripe for exploitation is the connected thermostat. Products like Nest and Ecobee remotely monitor and regulate the temperatures of homes. If compromised by hackers, they could be used to blast the air conditioning during a blizzard or crank up the heat in the middle of a July heatwave. Although this may seem like an inconvenience rather than a catastrophe for a typical homeowner, when applied to business environments, the stakes are raised. For example, an attacker who gains control of the HVAC systems of a large building could theoretically increase an organization’s electricity bill to the point where paying a ransom becomes a practical and cost-effective alternative.  

The same reasoning behind the thermostat example can be applied to a wide range of other IoT devices. It wouldn’t be difficult to imagine a hijacked smart lock taking on a mind of its own or a connected lightbulb refusing to illuminate. However, one can also imagine more disturbing scenarios arising from advanced IoT use cases, such as connected cars and smart cities. In such cases, a successful ransomware attack could extend well beyond a minor inconvenience, exposing affected victims to potentially dangerous or even life-threatening consequences.

However, IoT isn’t a lost cause altogether. As with any emerging technology, IoT device vendors need to work out the security bugs in their products, and they’re already beginning to do so. For every snooping Barbie discovered and connected car hacked, the industry moves one step closer to achieving the level of security that enterprise customers need. Similar to how the Target breach was a wake-up call for retailers, the IoT industry will inevitably be hit with an attack of a similar scope, whose repercussions will in turn serve as a major catalyst for industry-wide change.

Until we see this change, though, IT teams tasked with deploying connected devices must become more aware of the issues around IoT security and keep these in mind when deciding which devices to buy and deploy in their organizations. If your business can survive the next couple of years without going all in on IoT, it might be worth postponing purchases until the technology, especially the security, of these devices has evolved.

But if you absolutely can’t wait, there are several considerations that are critical when purchasing a new device. These include:

• Assess how easy it is to change default credentials. Many IoT-enabled devices, such as the Internet-enabled cameras that made up the Mirai botnet, are insecure because their owners never think to change the password. You wouldn’t do that with your new laptop, would you?
• Disable any insecure protocols. Not all devices are created equally, and device makers that fail to invest in secure protocols must be avoided. Right now, there is a lack of standards for what makes an IoT device secure, so it’s up to buyers to assess what makes the device tick. For example, many vulnerable webcams were reported in 2016, due to a Real Time Streaming Protocol that enabled video sharing but didn’t require a password for authentication.
• Evaluate the recovery process. Many devices can have factory settings reset with one click, while others may require manufacturer involvement. Worse yet, in some cases, recovery may be impossible, forcing users to pay the ransom as a last resort. It’s up to buyers to understand the recovery process for the devices they own, and to create a contingency plan should one of them be compromised. 

Whether you end up making the plunge into IoT or waiting until the kinks are worked out, the threats posed by Internet-connected devices are real. That being said, IoT is here to stay, so it’s up to us to ensure it isn’t allowed to compromise the security of our future. 

Related Content:

• Zones of Trust: A New Way of Thinking about IoT Security
• Tunneling through the “Walls” of IoT in the Enterprise
• Ransomware: How a Security Inconvenience Became the Industry’s Most-Feared Vulnerability

Javvad Malik is a London-based IT Security professional. Better known as an active blogger, event speaker and industry commentator who is possibly best known as one of the industry’s most prolific video bloggers with his signature fresh and light-hearted perspective on … View Full Bio

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/threats-converge-iot-meets-ransomware/a/d-id/1328304?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

Users of Windows 10 have been given the option to schedule their security updates as per their convenience rather than immediately, BBC News reports. Update timing has to be fixed once notifications are received but it must be installed within three days and can also be rescheduled during the waiting period.

This decision is a part of Microsoft project Creators Update, which is also looking into changing privacy settings, and was taken to ease user impatience because updates require rebooting which can happen at the wrong time and be disruptive.

However, cybersecurity experts fear this flexibility can give hackers the upper hand.

“I’m not 100% sold on the idea precisely because quite often these updates have critical security fixes in them, and you really want them on people’s machines as quickly as possible,” says Professor Alan Woodward of Surrey University, adding, “Once a critical flaw gets understood by hackers they will be out there trying to exploit it.”

Read more on BBC News.

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: http://www.darkreading.com/application-security/users-can-now-time-their-windows-10-updates/d/d-id/1328323?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT