Earlier this year, businesses across the globe transitioned to a remote work environment almost overnight at unprecedented scale and speed. Security teams worked around the clock to empower and protect their newly distributed teams.
Protect and support a remote workforce
Cisco’s report found the majority of organizations around the world were at best only somewhat prepared in supporting their remote workforce. But, it has accelerated the adoption of technologies that enable employees to work securely from anywhere and on any device – preparing businesses to be flexible for whatever comes next. The survey found that:
- 85% of organizations said that cybersecurity is extremely important or more important than before COVID-19
- Secure access is the top cybersecurity challenge faced by the largest proportion of organizations (62%) when supporting remote workers
- One in two respondents said endpoints, including corporate laptops and personal devices, are a challenge to protect in a remote environment
- 66% of respondents indicated that the COVID-19 situation will result in an increase in cybersecurity investments
“Security and privacy are among the most significant social and economic issues of our lifetime,” said Jeetu Patel, SVP and GM of Cisco’s Security & Applications business.
“Cybersecurity historically has been overly complex. With this new way of working here to stay and organizations looking to increase their investment in cybersecurity, there’s a unique opportunity to transform the way we approach security as an industry to better meet the needs of our customers and end-users.”
People worried about the privacy of their tools
People are worried about the privacy of remote work tools and are skeptical whether companies are doing what is needed to keep their data safe. Despite the pandemic, they want little or no change to privacy requirements, and they want to see companies be more transparent regarding how they use their customer’s data.
Organizations have the opportunity to build confidence and trust by embedding privacy into their products and communicating their practices clearly and simply to their customers. The survey found that:
- 60% of respondents were concerned about the privacy of remote collaboration tools
- 53% want little or no change to existing privacy laws
- 48% feel they are unable to effectively protect their data today, and the main reason is that they can’t figure out what companies are doing with their data
- 56% believe governments should play a primary role in protecting consumer data, and consumers are highly supportive of the privacy laws enacted in their country
“Privacy is much more than just a compliance obligation. It is a fundamental human right and business imperative that is critical to building and maintaining customer trust,” said Harvey Jang, VP, Chief Privacy Officer, Cisco. “The core privacy and ethical principles of transparency, fairness, and accountability will guide us in this new, digital-first world.”
Despite highly publicized risks of data-sharing and AI, from facial recognition to political deepfakes, leadership at many organizations seems to be vastly underestimating the ethical challenges of the technology, NTT DATA Services reveals.
Just 12% of executives and 15% of employees say they believe AI will collect consumer data in unethical ways, and only 13% of executives and 19% of employees say AI will discriminate against minority groups.
Surveying 1,000 executive-level and non-executive employees across industries in North America in early 2020, the results indicate that organizations are eager to increase the pace of transformation.
AI and automation technologies play a vital role, helping businesses improve decision-making, business processes and even workplace culture. In fact, 61% say that AI will speed up innovation, and respondents say the technology is beginning to support improvements to efficiency (83%) and productivity (79%). Yet, there are many challenges with adoption and implementation, with ethical considerations and data security among the top few.
“AI presents one of the great leadership opportunities and challenges of our time. Leaders must be diligent in striking the balance, but they don’t have to go it alone,” said Eric Clark, Chief Digital Officer, NTT DATA Services.
“Our study outlines how businesses can take full advantage of emerging technologies and accelerate transformation, while taking necessary precautions on the path to responsible and secure adoption of artificial intelligence.”
Ethics and effectiveness of AI
For AI to be effective and avoid ethical pitfalls, businesses need to ensure that AI isn’t being programmed with biases that could lead to ethically charged decision-making or that cause AI to malfunction in some way.
One-quarter of executives and 36% of employees say they have experienced AI ignoring a command, and about one-fifth of both groups say AI offered them suggestions that reflected bias against a marginalized group.
Organizations do not have money or time to waste on technology investments gone wrong—so they must pivot their organizations to focus on agility, talent, change management, ethics, and other pressing issues.
Automation’s impact on the modern workforce
Modernizing the workforce means giving all employees access to the data and technologies that help them achieve optimum productivity. Most executives and employees believe that AI and automation will help improve employee effectiveness.
71% of executives say AI will make employees more efficient, 69% say it will improve employee accuracy, and 61% say it will speed up innovation. For this to happen, leaders need to invest in reskilling their workforce to get the most value out of emerging technologies.
Empowering the workforce through technology not only helps improve the bottom line, it helps drive employee retention – with 45% of employees responding they would be motivated to stay by education opportunities.
“The study overall paints a realistic picture of what we are seeing in the market,” said Tom Reuner, Senior Vice President at HFS Research.
“Going forward, enterprises will have to manage talent, organization, culture and provide the right environment for the new workforce, which seeks interesting projects and looks for meaning and motivation. AI technologies and methodologies are a critical enabler on that journey.”
AI adoption to create culture of speed, reinvention
Businesses and entire markets are being remade in terms of opportunity, operations and customer expectations, and there is no going back to the old pace of innovation. In fact, 47% of those surveyed believe failing to implement AI in some way will cause them to lose customers to competitors, and 44% think the bottom line will suffer.
However, few employees at companies surveyed think the pace of change at their organization is fast enough. In fact, less than one-third of executives and employees describe the pace of technology change, process change, or executive decision-making at their company as fast.
Even fewer—just 18% of employees and 19% of executives—say culture, which plays a major role in determining how workers respond to adjustments in technology and processes, changes quickly. This creates an opportunity for AI to drive sweeping change and speed up the pace of innovation and technology adoption.
CIOs and IT leaders who use composability to deal with continuing business disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors will make their enterprises more resilient, more sustainable and make more meaningful contributions, according to Gartner.
Analysts said that composable business means architecting for resilience and accepting that disruptive change is the norm. It supports a business that exploits the disruptions digital technology brings by making things modular – mixing and matching business functions to orchestrate the proper outcomes.
It supports a business that senses – or discovers – when change needs to happen; and then uses autonomous business units to creatively respond.
For some enterprises digital strategies became real for the first time
According to the 2021 Gartner Board of Directors survey, 69% of corporate directors want to accelerate enterprise digital strategies and implementations to help deal with the ongoing disruption. For some enterprises that means that their digital strategies became real for the first time, and for others that means rapidly scaling digital investments.
“Composable business is a natural acceleration of the digital business that organizations live every day,” said Daryl Plummer, research VP, Chief of Research and Gartner Fellow. “It allows organizations to finally deliver the resilience and agility that these interesting times demand.”
Don Scheibenreif, research VP at Gartner, explained that composable business starts with three building blocks — composable thinking, which ensures creative thinking is never lost; composable business architecture, which ensure flexibility and resiliency; and composable technologies, which are the tools for today and tomorrow.
“The world today demands something different from us. Composing – flexible, fluid, continuous, even improvisational – is how we will move forward. That is why composable business is more important than ever,” said Mr. Scheibenreif.
“During the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, most CIOs leveraged their organizations existing digital investments, and some CIOs accelerated their digital strategies by investing in some of the three composable building blocks,” said Tina Nunno, research VP and Gartner Fellow.
“To ensure their organizations were resilient, many CIOs also applied at least one of the four critical principles of composability, gaining more speed through discovery, greater agility through modularity, better leadership through orchestration, and resilience through autonomy.”
Composable business resilience
Analysts said that these four principles can be viewed differently depending on which building block organizations are working with:
- In composable thinking, these are design principles. They guide an organization’s approach to conceptualizing what to compose, and when.
- In composable business architecture, they are structural capabilities, giving an organization the mechanisms to use in architecting its business.
- In composable technologies, they are product design goals driving the features of technology that support the notions of composability.
“In the end, organizations need the principles and the building blocks to intentionally make composability real,” said Mr. Plummer.
The building blocks of composability can be used to pivot quickly to a new opportunity, industry, customer base or revenue stream. For example, a large Chinese retailer used composability when the pandemic hit to help re-architect their business. They used composable thinking and chose to pivot to live streaming sales activities.
They embraced social marketing technology and successfully retained over 5,000 in-store sales and customer support staff to become live streaming hosts. The retailer suffered no layoffs and minimal revenue loss.
“Throughout 2020, CIOs and IT leaders maintained their composure and delivered tremendous value,” said Ms. Nunno. “The next step is to create a more composable business using the three building blocks and applying the four principles. With composability, organizations can achieve digital acceleration, greater resiliency and the ability to innovate through disruption.”
Email attacks have moved past standard phishing and become more targeted over the years. In this article, I will focus on email impersonation attacks, outline why they are dangerous, and provide some tips to help individuals and organizations reduce their risk exposure to impersonation attacks.
What are email impersonation attacks?
Email impersonation attacks are malicious emails where scammers pretend to be a trusted entity to steal money and sensitive information from victims. The trusted entity being impersonated could be anyone – your boss, your colleague, a vendor, or a consumer brand you get automated emails from.
Email impersonation attacks are tough to catch and worryingly effective because we tend to take quick action on emails from known entities. Scammers use impersonation in concert with other techniques to defraud organizations and steal account credentials, sometimes without victims realizing their fate for days after the fraud.
Fortunately, we can all follow some security hygiene best practices to reduce the risk of email impersonation attacks.
Tip #1 – Look out for social engineering cues
Email impersonation attacks are often crafted with language that induces a sense of urgency or fear in victims, coercing them into taking the action the email wants them to take. Not every email that makes us feel these emotions will be an impersonation attack, of course, but it’s an important factor to keep an eye out for, nonetheless.
Here are some common phrases and situations you should look out for in impersonation emails:
- Short deadlines given at short notice for processes involving the transfer of money or sensitive information.
- Unusual purchase requests (e.g., iTunes gift cards).
- Employees requesting sudden changes to direct deposit information.
- Vendor sharing new.
This email impersonation attack exploits the COVID-19 pandemic to make an urgent request for gift card purchases.
Tip #2 – Always do a context check on emails
Targeted email attacks bank on victims being too busy and “doing before thinking” instead of stopping and engaging with the email rationally. While it may take a few extra seconds, always ask yourself if the email you’re reading – and what the email is asking for – make sense.
- Why would your CEO really ask you to purchase iTunes gift cards at two hours’ notice? Have they done it before?
- Why would Netflix emails come to your business email address?
- Why would the IRS ask for your SSN and other sensitive personal information over email?
To sum up this tip, I’d say: be a little paranoid while reading emails, even if they’re from trusted entities.
Tip #3 – Check for email address and sender name deviations
To stop email impersonation, many organizations have deployed keyword-based protection that catches emails where the email addresses or sender names match those of key executives (or other related keywords). To get past these security controls, impersonation attacks use email addresses and sender names with slight deviations from those of the entity the attacks are impersonating. Some common deviations to look out for are:
- Changes to the spelling, especially ones that are missed at first glance (e.g., “ei” instead of “ie” in a name).
- Changes based on visual similarities to trick victims (e.g. replacing “rn” with “m” because they look alike).
- Business emails sent from personal accounts like Gmail or Yahoo without advance notice. It’s advisable to validate the identity of the sender through secondary channels (text, Slack, or phone call) if they’re emailing you with requests from their personal account for the first time.
- Descriptive changes to the name, even if the changes fit in context. For example, attackers impersonating a Chief Technology Officer named Ryan Fraser may send emails with the sender name as “Ryan Fraser, Chief Technology Officer”.
- Changes to the components of the sender name (e.g., adding or removing a middle initial, abbreviating Mary Jane to MJ).
Tip #4 – Learn the “greatest hits” of impersonation phrases
Email impersonation has been around for long enough that there are well-known phrases and tactics we need to be aware of. The emails don’t always have to be directly related to money or data – the first email is sometimes a simple request, just to see who bites and buys into the email’s faux legitimacy. Be aware of the following phrases/context:
- “Are you free now?”, “Are you at your desk?” and related questions are frequent opening lines in impersonation emails. Because they seem like harmless emails with simple requests, they get past email security controls and lay the bait.
- “I need an urgent favor”, “Can you do something for me within the next 15 minutes?”, and other phrases implying the email is of a time-sensitive nature. If you get this email from your “CEO”, your instinct might be to respond quickly and be duped by the impersonation in the process.
- “Can you share your personal cell phone number?”, “I need your personal email”, and other out-of-context requests for personal information. The objective of these requests is to harvest information and build out a profile of the victim; once adversaries have enough information, they have another entity to impersonate.
Tip #5 – Use secondary channels of authentication
Enterprise adoption of two-factor authentication (2FA) has grown considerably over the years, helping safeguard employee accounts and reduce the impact of account compromise.
Individuals should try to replicate this best practice for any email that makes unusual requests related to money or data. For example:
- Has a vendor emailed you with a sudden change in their bank account details, right when an invoice is due? Call or text the vendor and confirm that they sent the email.
- Did your manager email you asking for gift card purchases? Send them a Slack message (or whatever productivity app you use) to confirm the request.
- Did your HR representative email you a COVID resource document that needs email account credentials to be viewed? Check the veracity of the email with the HR rep.
Even if you’re reaching out to very busy people for this additional authentication, they will understand and appreciate your caution.
These tips are meant as starting points for individuals and organizations to better understand email impersonation and start addressing its risk factors. But effective protection against email impersonation can’t be down to eye tests alone. Enterprise security teams should conduct a thorough audit of their email security stack and explore augments to native email security that offer specific protection against impersonation.
With email more important to our digital lives than ever, it’s vital that we are able to believe people are who their email says they are. Email impersonation attacks exploit this sometimes-misplaced belief. Stopping email impersonation attacks will require a combination of security hygiene, email security solutions that provide specific impersonation protection, and some healthy paranoia while reading emails – even if they seem to be from people you trust.
A failing cybersecurity market is contributing to ineffective performance of cybersecurity technology, a Debate Security research reveals.
Based on over 100 comprehensive interviews with business and cybersecurity leaders from large enterprises, together with vendors, assessment organizations, government agencies, industry associations and regulators, the research shines a light on why technology vendors are not incentivized to deliver products that are more effective at reducing cyber risk.
The report supports the view that efficacy problems in the cybersecurity market are primarily due to economic issues, not technological ones. The research addresses three key themes and ultimately arrives at a consensus for how to approach a new model.
Cybersecurity technology is not as effective as it should be
90% of participants reported that cybersecurity technology is not as effective as it should be when it comes to protecting organizations from cyber risk. Trust in technology to deliver on its promises is low, and yet when asked how organizations evaluate cybersecurity technology efficacy and performance, there was not a single common definition.
Pressure has been placed on improving people and process related issues, but ineffective technology has become accepted as normal – and shamefully – inevitable.
The underlying problem is one of economics, not technology
92% of participants reported that there is a breakdown in the market relationship between buyers and vendors, with many seeing deep-seated information asymmetries.
Outside government, few buyers today use detailed, independent cybersecurity efficacy assessment as part of their cybersecurity procurement process, and not even the largest organizations reported having the resources to conduct all the assessments themselves.
As a result, vendors are incentivized to focus on other product features, and on marketing, deprioritizing cybersecurity technology efficacy – one of several classic signs of a “market for lemons”.
Coordinated action between stakeholders only achieved through regulation
Unless buyers demand greater efficacy, regulation may be the only way to address the issue. Overcoming first-mover disadvantages will be critical to fixing the broken cybersecurity technology market.
Many research participants believe that coordinated action between all stakeholders can only be achieved through regulation – though some hold out hope that coordination could be achieved through sectoral associations.
In either case, 70% of respondents feel that independent, transparent assessment of technology would help solve the market breakdown. Setting standards on technology assessment rather than on technology itself could prevent stifling innovation.
Defining cybersecurity technology efficacy
Participants in this research broadly agree that four characteristics are required to comprehensively define cybersecurity technology efficacy.
To be effective, cybersecurity solutions need to have the capability to deliver the stated security mission (be fit-for-purpose), have the practicality that enterprises need to implement, integrate, operate and maintain them (be fit-for-use), have the quality in design and build to avoid vulnerabilities and negative impact, and the provenance in the vendor company, its people and supply chain such that these do not introduce additional security risk.
“In cybersecurity right now, trust doesn’t always sell, and good security doesn’t always sell and isn’t always easy to buy. That’s a real problem,” said Ciaran Martin, advisory board member, Garrison Technology.
“Why we’re in this position is a bit of a mystery. This report helps us understand it. Fixing the problem is harder. But our species has fixed harder problems and we badly need the debate this report calls for, and industry-led action to follow it up.”
“Company boards are well aware that cybersecurity poses potentially existential risk, but are generally not well equipped to provide oversight on matters of technical detail,” said John Cryan, Chairman Man Group.
“Boards are much better equipped when it comes to the issues of incentives and market dynamics revealed by this research. Even if government regulation proves inevitable, I would encourage business leaders to consider these findings and to determine how, as buyers, corporates can best ensure that cybersecurity solutions offered by the market are fit for purpose.”
“As a technologist and developer of cybersecurity products, I really feel for cybersecurity professionals who are faced with significant challenges when trying to select effective technologies,” said Henry Harrison, CSO of Garrison Technology.
“We see two noticeable differences when selling to our two classes of prospects. For security-sensitive government customers, technology efficacy assessment is central to buying behavior – but we rarely see anything similar when dealing with even the most security-sensitive commercial customers. We take from this study that in many cases this has less to do with differing risk appetites and more to do with structural market issues.”
The machine identity attack surface is exploding, with a rapid increase in all types of machine identity-related security events in 2018 and 2019, according to Venafi. For example, the number of reported machine identity-related cyberattacks grew by over 400% during this two-year period.
“We have seen machine use skyrocket in organizations over the last five years, but many businesses still focus their security controls primarily on human identity management,” said Kevin Bocek, VP of security strategy and threat intelligence at Venafi.
“Digital transformation initiatives are in jeopardy because attackers are able to exploit wide gaps in machine identity management strategies. The COVID-19 pandemic is driving faster adoption of cloud, hybrid and microservices architectures, but protecting machine identities for these projects are often an afterthought.
“The only way to mitigate these risks is to build comprehensive machine identity management programs that are as comprehensive as customer, partner and employee identity and access management strategies.”
- Between 2015 and 2019, the number of reported cyberattacks that used machine identities grew by more than 700%, with this amount increasing by 433% between the years 2018 and 2019 alone.
- From 2015 to 2019, the number of vulnerabilities involving machine identities grew by 260%, increasing by 125% between 2018 and 2019.
- The use of commodity malware that abuses machine identities doubled between the years 2018 and 2019 and grew 300% over the five years leading up to 2019.
- Between 2015 and 2019, the number of reported advanced persistent threats (APTs) that used machine identities grew by 400%. Reports of these attacks increased by 150% between 2018 and 2019.
“As our use of cloud, hybrid, open source and microservices use increases, there are many more machine identities on enterprise networks—and this rising number correlates with the accelerated number of threats,” said Yana Blachman, threat intelligence researcher at Venafi.
“As a result, every organization’s machine identity attack surface is getting much bigger. Although many threats or security incidents frequently involve a machine identity component, too often these details do not receive enough attention and aren’t highlighted in public reports.
“This lack of focus on machine identities in cyber security reporting has led to a lack of data and focus on this crucial area of security. As a result, the trends we are seeing in this report are likely just the tip of the iceberg.”
Akamai published a report detailing criminal activity targeting the retail, travel, and hospitality industries with attacks of all types and sizes between July 2018 and June 2020. The report also includes numerous examples of criminal ads from the darknet illustrating how they cash in on the results from successful attacks and the corresponding data theft.
“This is why credential stuffing has become so popular over the past few years. These days, retail and loyalty profiles contain a smorgasbord of personal information, and in some cases financial information too. All of this data can be collected, sold, and traded or even compiled for extensive profiles that can later be used for crimes such as identity theft.”
Recirculating old credential lists to identify new vulnerable accounts
During the COVID-19 pandemic-related lockdowns in Q1 2020, criminals took advantage of the worldwide situation and circulated password combination lists, targeting each of the commerce industries featured in the report.
It was during this time that criminals started recirculating old credential lists in an effort to identify new vulnerable accounts, leading to a significant uptick in criminal inventory and sales related to loyalty programs.
Between July 2018 and June 2020, more than 100 billion credential stuffing attacks ere observed in total. In the commerce category – comprising the retail, travel, and hospitality industries – there were 63,828,642,449 recorded. More than 90% of the attacks in the commerce category targeted the retail industry.
Credential stuffing isn’t the only way that criminals target the retail, travel, and hospitality industries. They target organizations in these industries at the source using SQL Injection (SQLi) and Local File Inclusion (LFI) attacks.
Between July 2018 and June 2020, 4,375,711,860 web attacks against retail, travel, and hospitality were observed, accounting for 41% of the overall attack volume across all industries. Within this data set, 83% of those web attacks targeted the retail sector alone.
SQLi attacks are an evident favorite among criminals, accounting for just under 79% of the total web application attacks against retail, travel, and hospitality.
The holiday shopping season altered by the pandemic
As the global economy prepares for a holiday shopping season, it does so in an environment that has changed radically due to the pandemic. Consumers will not be standing outside of brick and mortar stores waiting for the latest deals in the same way they have in the past. They’re going to log-in, collect their reward points, and maybe use loyalty programs to gain some discounts or other perks just for being a member.
Considering everything that goes into a successful loyalty program, and the information people need to provide in order to take part, the criminals have everything they need to get started in a number of crime-related ventures, from account takeovers, to straight-up identity theft. So, while an individual’s loyalty to a merchant, airline, or hotel chain might not literally be for sale, there’s a good chance the account associated with such programs might be.
“All businesses need to adapt to external events, whether it’s a pandemic, a competitor, or an active and intelligent attacker,” Ragan concluded.
“Some of the top loyalty programs targeted require nothing more than a mobile number and a numeric password, while others rely on easily obtained information as a means of authentication. There is an urgent need for better identity controls and countermeasures to prevent attacks against APIs and server resources.”
The cybersecurity challenges of the global pandemic are now colliding with the 2020 U.S. presidential election resulting in a surge of cybercrime, VMware research reveals.
Attacks growing increasingly sophisticated and destructive
As eCrime groups grow more powerful, these attacks have grown increasingly sophisticated and destructive – respondents reported that 82 percent of attacks now involve instances of counter incident response (IR), and 55 percent involve island hopping, where an attacker infiltrates an organization’s network to launch attacks on others within the supply chain.
“The rapid shift to a remote world combined with the power and scale of the dark web has fueled the expansion of eCrime groups. And now ahead of the election, we are at cybersecurity tipping point, cybercriminals have become dramatically more sophisticated and punitive focused on destructive attacks.”
Data for the report is based on an online survey of eighty-three IR and cybersecurity professionals from around the world in September 2020.
Incidents of counter IR are at an all-time high, occurring in 82% of IR engagements
Suggesting the prevalence of increasingly sophisticated, often nation-state attackers, who have the resources and cyber savvy to colonize victims’ networks. Destructive attacks, which are often the final stage of counter IR have also surged, with respondents estimating victims experience them 54% of the time.
55% of cyberattacks target the victim’s digital infrastructure for the purpose of island hopping
The pandemic has left organizations increasingly vulnerable to such attacks as their employees shift to remote work – and less secure home networks and devices.
Custom malware is now being used in 50% of attacks reported by respondents
This demonstrates the scale of the dark web, where such malware and malware services can be purchased to empower traditional criminals, spies and terrorists, many of whom do not have the sophisticated resources to execute these attacks.
As we approach the 2020 presidential election, cybercrime remains a top concern
Drawing upon their security expertise – and in line with recent advisories from Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) – 73% of respondents believe there will be foreign influence on the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and 60% believe it will be influenced by a cyberattack.
Some of the world’s most skilled nation-state cyber adversaries and notorious ransomware gangs are deploying an arsenal of new open-sourced tools, actively exploiting corporate email systems and using online extortion to scare victims into paying ransoms, according to a report from Accenture.
The report examines the tactics, techniques and procedures employed by some of the most sophisticated cyber adversaries and explores how cyber incidents could evolve over the next year.
“Since COVID-19 radically shifted the way we work and live, we’ve seen a wide range of cyber adversaries changing their tactics to take advantage of new vulnerabilities,” said Josh Ray, who leads Accenture Security’s cyber defense practice globally.
“The biggest takeaway from our research is that organizations should expect cybercriminals to become more brazen as the potential opportunities and pay-outs from these campaigns climb to the stratosphere.
“In such a climate, organizations need to double down on putting the right controls in place and by leveraging reliable cyber threat intelligence to understand and expel the most complex threats.”
Sophisticated adversaries mask identities with off-the-shelf tools
Throughout 2020, CTI analysts have observed suspected state-sponsored and organized criminal groups using a combination of off-the-shelf tooling — including “living off the land” tools, shared hosting infrastructure and publicly developed exploit code — and open source penetration testing tools at unprecedented scale to carry out cyberattacks and hide their tracks.
For example, Accenture tracks the patterns and activities of an Iran-based hacker group referred to as SOURFACE (also known as Chafer or Remix Kitten). Active since at least 2014, the group is known for its cyberattacks on the oil and gas, communications, transportation and other industries in the U.S., Israel, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Australia and other regions.
CTI analysts have observed SOURFACE using legitimate Windows functions and freely available tools such as Mimikatz for credential dumping. This technique is used to steal user authentication credentials like usernames and passwords to allow attackers to escalate privileges or move across the network to compromise other systems and accounts while disguised as a valid user.
According to the report, it is highly likely that sophisticated actors, including state-sponsored and organized criminal groups, will continue to use off-the-shelf and penetration testing tools for the foreseeable future as they are easy to use, effective and cost-efficient.
New, sophisticated tactics target business continuity
The report notes how one notorious group has aggressively targeted systems supporting Microsoft Exchange and Outlook Web Access, and then uses these compromised systems as beachheads within a victim’s environment to hide traffic, relay commands, compromise e-mail, steal data and gather credentials for espionage efforts.
Operating from Russia, the group, refered to as BELUGASTURGEON (also known as Turla or Snake), has been active for more than 10 years and is associated with numerous cyberattacks aimed at government agencies, foreign policy research firms and think tanks across the globe.
Ransomware feeds new profitable, scalable business model
Ransomware has quickly become a more lucrative business model in the past year, with cybercriminals taking online extortion to a new level by threatening to publicly release stolen data or sell it and name and shame victims on dedicated websites.
The criminals behind the Maze, Sodinokibi (also known as REvil) and DoppelPaymer ransomware strains are the pioneers of this growing tactic, which is delivering bigger profits and resulting in a wave of copycat actors and new ransomware peddlers.
Additionally, the infamous LockBit ransomware emerged earlier this year, which — in addition to copying the extortion tactic — has gained attention due to its self-spreading feature that quickly infects other computers on a corporate network.
The motivations behind LockBit appear to be financial, too. CTI analysts have tracked cybercriminals behind it on Dark Web forums, where they are found to advertise regular updates and improvements to the ransomware, and actively recruit new members promising a portion of the ransom money.
The success of these hack-and-leak extortion methods, especially against larger organizations, means they will likely proliferate for the remainder of 2020 and could foreshadow future hacking trends in 2021. In fact, CTI analysts have observed recruitment campaigns on a popular Dark Web forum from the threat actors behind Sodinokibi.
Trustwave released a report which depicts how technology trends, compromise risks and regulations are shaping how organizations’ data is stored and protected.
Data protection strategy
The report is based on a recent survey of 966 full-time IT professionals who are cybersecurity decision makers or security influencers within their organizations.
Over 75% of respondents work in organizations with over 500 employees in key geographic regions including the U.S., U.K., Australia and Singapore.
“Our findings illustrate organizations are under enormous pressure to secure data as workloads migrate off-premises, attacks on cloud services increases and ransomware evolves. Gaining complete visibility of data either at rest or in motion and eliminating threats as they occur are top cybersecurity challenges all industries are facing.”
More sensitive data moving to the cloud
Types of data organizations are moving into the cloud have become increasingly sensitive, therefore a solid data protection strategy is crucial. Ninety-six percent of total respondents stated they plan to move sensitive data to the cloud over the next two years with 52% planning to include highly sensitive data with Australia at 57% leading the regions surveyed.
Not surprisingly, when asked to rate the importance of securing data regarding digital transformation initiatives, an average score of 4.6 out of a possible high of five was tallied.
Hybrid cloud model driving digital transformation and data storage
Of those surveyed, most at 55% use both on-premises and public cloud to store data with 17% using public cloud only. Singapore organizations use the hybrid cloud model most frequently at 73% or 18% higher than the average and U.S. organizations employ it the least at 45%.
Government respondents store data on-premises only the most at 39% or 11% higher than average. Additionally, 48% of respondents stored data using the hybrid cloud model during a recent digital transformation project with only 29% relying solely on their own databases.
Most organizations use multiple cloud services
Seventy percent of organizations surveyed were found to use between two and four public cloud services and 12% use five or more. At 14%, the U.S. had the most instances of using five or more public cloud services followed by the U.K. at 13%, Australia at 9% and Singapore at 9%. Only 18% of organizations queried use zero or just one public cloud service.
Perceived threats do not match actual incidents
Thirty-eight percent of organizations are most concerned with malware and ransomware followed by phishing and social engineering at 18%, application threats 14%, insider threats at 9%, privilege escalation at 7% and misconfiguration attack at 6%.
Interestingly, when asked about actual threats experienced, phishing and social engineering came in first at 27% followed by malware and ransomware at 25%. The U.K. and Singapore experienced the most phishing and social engineering incidents at 32% and 31% and the U.S. and Australia experienced the most malware and ransomware attacks at 30% and 25%.
Respondents in the government sector had the highest incidents of insider threats at 13% or 5% above the average.
Patching practices show room for improvement
A resounding 96% of respondents have patching policies in place, however, of those, 71% rely on automated patching and 29% employ manual patching. Overall, 61% of organizations patched within 24 hours and 28% patched between 24 and 48 hours.
The highest percentage patching within a 24-hour window came from Australia at 66% and the U.K. at 61%. Unfortunately, 4% of organizations took a week to over a month to patch.
Reliance on automation driving key security processes
In addition to a high percentage of organizations using automated patching processes, findings show 89% of respondents employ automation to check for overprivileged users or lock down access credentials once an individual has left their job or changed roles.
This finding correlates to low concern for insider threats and data compromise due to privilege escalation according to the survey. Organizations must exercise caution when assuming removal of user access to applications to also include databases, which is often not the case.
Data regulations having minor impact on database security strategies
These findings may suggest a lack of alignment between information technology and other departments, such as legal, responsible for helping ensure stipulations like ‘the right to be forgotten’ are properly enforced to avoid severe penalties.
Small teams with big responsibilities
Of those surveyed, 47% had a security team size of only six to 15 members. Respondents from Singapore had the smallest teams with 47% reporting between one and ten members and the U.S. had the largest teams with 22% reporting team size of 21 or more, 2% higher than the average.
Thirty-two percent of government respondents surprisingly run security operations with teams between just six and ten members.
Remote work has left many organizations lagging in productivity and revenue due to remote access solutions. 19% of IT leaders surveyed said they often or always experience network performance and latency issues when using legacy remote access solutions, with an additional 43% saying they sometimes do.
Those issues have resulted in a loss of productivity for 68% of respondents and a loss of revenue for 43%, a Perimeter 81 report reveals.
According to the report, organizations securely connect to internal networks in a variety of ways when working remotely. Some 66% reported using VPNs, 58% said they use a cloud service through a web browser, 48% rely on a remote access solution, and 34% use a firewall.
The many organizations still using legacy solutions like VPNs and firewalls will struggle to scale, face bottlenecks, and lack network visibility.
security solutions and remote work
33% of respondents said a password is the only way they authenticate themselves to gain access to systems. And while 62% of IT managers said they are using cloud-based security solutions to secure remote access, 49% said they’re still using a firewall, and 41% a hardware VPN.
But there are signs of progress, as organizations increasingly favor modern cloud-based solutions over outdated legacy solutions. Following the pandemic and a switch to remote work, 72% of respondents said they’re very or completely likely to increase adoption of cloud-based security solutions, 38% higher than before the pandemic.
“It’s no surprise that companies are increasingly moving to cloud-based cyber and network security platforms. As corporations of all sizes rely on the cloud to run their businesses, they need new ways of consuming security to effectively prevent cyberattacks regardless of their location or network environment.”
Other key findings
- 74% of respondents are adopting cloud-based security solutions over hardware due to security concerns. 44% are doing so due to scalability concerns, and 43% cited time-saving considerations.
- 61% of organizations believe that having to protect new devices is the greatest security concern in light of remote work, while 56% said their greatest concern was lack of visibility into remote user activity.
- 39% of respondents reported that scalability is their greatest challenge in securing the remote workforce, while 38% said budget allocation was their greatest challenge.
The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has released a list of 25 vulnerabilities Chinese state-sponsored hackers have been recently scanning for or have exploited in attacks.
“Most of the vulnerabilities […] can be exploited to gain initial access to victim networks using products that are directly accessible from the Internet and act as gateways to internal networks. The majority of the products are either for remote access or for external web services, and should be prioritized for immediate patching,” the agency noted.
The list of vulnerabilities exploited by Chinese hackers
The list is as follows:
The vulnerability list they shared is likely not complete, as Chinese-sponsored actors may use other known and unknown vulnerabilities. All network defenders – but especially those working on securing critical systems in organizations on which US national security and defense are depending on – should consider patching these as a priority.
Mitigations are also available
If patching is not possible, the risk of exploitation for most of these can be lowered by implementing mitigations provided by the vendors. CISA also advises implementing general mitigations like:
- Disabling external management capabilities and setting up an out-of-band management network
- Blocking obsolete or unused protocols at the network edge and disabling them in device configurations
- Isolating Internet-facing services in a network DMZ to reduce the exposure of the internal network
- Enabling robust logging of Internet-facing services and monitoring the logs for signs of compromise
The agency also noted that the problem of data stolen or modified before a device has been patched cannot be solved only by patching, and that password changes and reviews of accounts are a good practice.
Additional “most exploited vulnerabilities” lists
Earlier this year, CISA released a list of old and new software vulnerabilities that are routinely exploited by foreign cyber actors and cyber criminals, the NSA and the Australian Signals Directorate released a list of web application vulnerabilities that are commonly exploited to install web shell malware, and Recorded Future published a list of ten software vulnerabilities most exploited by cybercriminals in 2019.
Admins and network defenders are encouraged to peruse them and patch those flaws as well.
Many companies tend to jump into the cloud before thinking about security. They may think they’ve thought about security, but when moving to the cloud, the whole concept of security changes. The security model must transform as well.
Moving to the cloud and staying secure
Most companies maintain a “castle, moat, and drawbridge” attitude to security. They put everything inside the “castle” (datacenter); establish a moat around it, with sharks and alligators, guns on turrets; and control access by raising the drawbridge. The access protocol involves a request for access, vetting through firewall rules where the access is granted or denied. That’s perimeter security.
When moving to the cloud, perimeter security is still important, but identity-based security is available to strengthen the security posture. That’s where a cloud partner skilled at explaining and operating a different security model is needed.
Anybody can grab a virtual machine, build the machine in the cloud, and be done, but establishing a VM and transforming the machine to a service with identity-based security is a different prospect. When identity is added to security, the model looks very different, resulting in cost savings and an increased security posture.
Advanced technology, cost of security, and lack of cybersecurity professionals place a strain on organizations. Cloud providers invest heavily in infrastructure, best-in-class tools, and a workforce uniquely focused on security. As a result, organizations win operationally, financially, and from a security perspective, when moving to the cloud. To be clear, moving applications and servers, as is, to the cloud does not make them secure.
Movement to the cloud should be a standardized process and should use a Cloud Center of Excellence (CCoE) or Cloud Business Office (CBO); however, implemented within a process focused on security first, organizations can reap the security benefits.
Although security is marketed as a shared responsibility in the cloud, ultimately, the owner of the data (customer) is responsible and the responsibility is non-transferrable. In short, the customer must understand the responsibility matrix (RACI) involved to accomplish their end goals. Every cloud provider has a shared responsibility matrix, but organizations often misunderstand the responsibilities or the lines fall into a grey area. Regardless of responsibility models, the data owner has a responsibility to protect the information and systems. As a result, the enterprise must own an understanding of all stakeholders, their responsibilities, and their status.
When choosing a partner, it’s vital for companies to identify their exact needs, their weaknesses, and even their culture. No cloud vendor will cover it all from the beginning, so it’s essential that organizations take control and ask the right questions (see Cloud Security Alliance’s CAIQ), in order to place trust in any cloud provider. If it’s to be a managed service, for example, it’s crucial to ask detailed questions about how the cloud provider intends to execute the offering.
It’s important to develop a standard security questionnaire and probe multiple layers deep into the service model until the provider is unable to meet the need. Looking through a multilayer deep lens allows the customer and service provider to understand the exact lines of responsibility and the details around task accomplishment.
It might sound obvious, but it’s worth stressing: trust is a shared responsibility between the customer and cloud provider. Trust is also earned over time and is critical to the success of the customer-cloud provider relationship. That said, zero trust is a technical term that means, from a technology viewpoint, assume danger and breach. Organizations must trust their cloud provider but should avoid blind trust and validate. Trust as a Service (TaaS) is a newer acronym that refers to third-party endorsement of a provider’s security practices.
Key influencers of a customer’s trust in their cloud provider include:
- Data location
- Investigation status and location of data
- Data segregation (keeping cloud customers’ data separated from others)
- Privileged access
- Backup and recovery
- Regulatory compliance
- Long-term viability
A TaaS example: Google Cloud
Google has taken great strides to earn customer trust, designing the Google Cloud Platform with a key eye on zero trust and its implementation of the model BeyondCorp. For example, Google has implemented two core concepts including:
- Delivery of services and data: ensuring that people with the correct identity and the right purpose can access the required data every time
- Prioritization and focus: access and innovation are placed ahead of threats and risks, meaning that as products are innovated, security is built into the environment
Transparency is very important to the trust relationship. Google has enabled transparency through strong visibility and control of data. When evaluating cloud providers, understanding their transparency related to access and service status is crucial. Google ensures transparency by using specific controls including:
- Limited data center access from a physical standpoint, adhering to strict access controls
- Disclosing how and why customer data is accessed
- Incorporating a process of access approvals
Multi-layered security for a trusted infrastructure
Finally, cloud services must provide customers with an understanding of how each layer of infrastructure works and build rules into each. This includes operational and device security, encrypting data at rest, multiple layers of identity, and finally storage services: multi-layered, and supported by security by default.
Cloud native companies have a security-first approach and naturally have a higher security understanding and posture. That said, when choosing a cloud provider, enterprises should always understand, identify, and ensure that their cloud solution addresses each one of their security needs, and who’s responsible for what.
Essentially, every business must find a cloud partner that can answer all the key questions, provide transparency, and establish a trusted relationship in the zero trust world where we operate.
Zerologon scored a perfect 10 CVSS score. Threats rating a perfect 10 are easy to execute and have deep-reaching impact. Fortunately, they aren’t frequent, especially in prominent software brands such as Windows. Still, organizations that perpetually lag when it comes to patching become prime targets for cybercriminals. Flaws like Zerologon are rare, but there’s no reason to assume that the next attack will not be using a perfect 10 CVSS vulnerability, this time a zero-day.
Zerologon: Unexpected squall
Zerologon escalates a domain user beyond their current role and permissions to a Windows Domain Administrator. This vulnerability is trivially easy to exploit. While it seems that the most obvious threat is a disgruntled insider, attackers may target any average user. The most significant risk comes from a user with an already compromised system.
In this scenario, a bad actor has already taken over an end user’s system but is constrained only to their current level of access. By executing this exploit, the bad actor can break out of their existing permissions box. This attack grants them the proverbial keys to the kingdom in a Windows domain to access whatever Windows-based devices they wish.
Part of why Zerologon is problematic is that many organizations rely on Windows as an authoritative identity for a domain. To save time, they promote their Windows Domain Administrators to an Administrator role throughout the organizational IT ecosystem and assign bulk permissions, rather than adding them individually. This method eases administration by removing the need to update the access permissions frequently as these users change jobs. This practice violates the principle of least privilege, leaving an opening for anyone with a Windows Domain Administrator role to exercise broad-reaching access rights beyond what they require to fulfill the role.
Beware of sharks
Advanced preparation for attacks like these requires a fundamental paradigm shift in organizational boundary definitions away from a legacy mentality to a more modern cybersecurity mindset. The traditional castle model assumes all threats remain outside the firewall boundary and trust everything either natively internal or connected via VPN to some degree.
Modern cybersecurity professionals understand the advantage of controls like zero standing privilege (ZSP), which authorizes no one and requires that each user request access and evaluation before granting privileged access. Think of it much like the security check at an airport. To get in, everyone —passenger, pilot, even store staff— needs to be inspected, prove they belong and have nothing questionable in their possession.
This continual re-certification prevents users from gaining access once they’ve experienced an event that alters their eligibility, such as leaving the organization or changing positions. Checking permissions before approving them ensures only those who currently require a resource can access it.
My hero zero (standing privilege)
Implementing the design concept of zero standing privilege is crucial to hardening against privilege escalation attacks, as it removes the administrator’s vast amounts of standing power and access. Users acquire these rights for a limited period and only on an as-needed basis. This Just-In-Time (JIT) method of provisioning creates a better access review process. Requests are either granted time-bound access or flagged for escalation to a human approver, ensuring automation oversight.
An essential component of zero standing privilege is avoiding super-user roles and access. Old school practitioners may find it odd and question the impact on daily administrative tasks that keep the ecosystem running. Users manage these tasks through heavily logged time-limited permission assignments. Reliable user behavior analytics, combined with risk-based privileged access management (PAM) and machine learning supported log analysis, offers organizations better contextual identity information. Understanding how their privileged access is leveraged and identifying access misuse before it takes root is vital to preventing a breach.
Peering into the depths
To even start with zero standing privilege, an organization must understand what assets they consider privileged. The categorization of digital assets begins the process. The next step is assigning ownership of these resources. Doing this allows organizations to configure the PAM software to accommodate the policies and access rules defined organizationally, ensuring access rules meet governance and compliance requirements.
The PAM solution requires in-depth visibility of each individual’s full access across all cloud and SaaS environments, as well as throughout the internal IT infrastructure. This information improves the identification of toxic combinations, where granted permissions create compliance issues such as segregation of duties (SoD) violations.
AI & UEBA to the rescue
Zero standing privilege generates a large number of user logs and behavioral information over time. Manual log review becomes unsustainable very quickly. Leveraging the power of AI and machine learning to derive intelligent analytics allows organizations to identify risky behaviors and locate potential breaches far faster than human users.
Integration of a user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA) software establishes baselines of behavior, triggering alerts when deviations occur. UEBA systems detect insider threats and advanced persistent threats (APTs) while generating contextual identity information.
UEBA systems track all behavior linked back to an entity and identify anomalous behaviors such as spikes in access requests, requesting access to data that would typically not be allowed for that user’s roles, or systematically accessing numerous items. Contextual information helps organizations identifying situations that might indicate a breach or point to unauthorized exfiltration of data.
Your compass points to ZTA
Protecting against privilege escalation threats requires more than merely staying up to date on patches. Part of stopping attacks like Zerologon is to re-imagine how security is architected in an organization. Centering identity as the new security perimeter and implementing zero standing privilege are essential to the foundation of a security model known as zero trust architecture (ZTA).
Zero trust architecture has existed for a while in the corporate world. It is gaining attention from the public sector since NIST’s recent approval of SP-207 outlined ZTA and how to leverage it for the government agencies. NIST’s sanctification of ZTA opened the doors for government entities and civilian contractors to incorporate it into their security model. Taking this route helps to close the privilege escalation pathway providing your organization a secure harbor in the event of another cybersecurity perfect storm.
Researchers from the University of Ottawa, in collaboration with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Bar-Ilan University scientists, have been able to create optical framed knots in the laboratory that could potentially be applied in modern technologies.
Top view of the framed knots generated in this work
Their work opens the door to new methods of distributing secret cryptographic keys – used to encrypt and decrypt data, ensure secure communication and protect private information.
“This is fundamentally important, in particular from a topology-focused perspective, since framed knots provide a platform for topological quantum computations,” explained senior author, Professor Ebrahim Karimi, Canada Research Chair in Structured Light at the University of Ottawa.
“In addition, we used these non-trivial optical structures as information carriers and developed a security protocol for classical communication where information is encoded within these framed knots.”
The concept of framed knots
The researchers suggest a simple do-it-yourself lesson to help us better understand framed knots, those three-dimensional objects that can also be described as a surface.
“Take a narrow strip of a paper and try to make a knot,” said first author Hugo Larocque, uOttawa alumnus and current PhD student at MIT.
“The resulting object is referred to as a framed knot and has very interesting and important mathematical features.”
The group tried to achieve the same result but within an optical beam, which presents a higher level of difficulty. After a few tries (and knots that looked more like knotted strings), the group came up with what they were looking for: a knotted ribbon structure that is quintessential to framed knots.
“In order to add this ribbon, our group relied on beam-shaping techniques manipulating the vectorial nature of light,” explained Hugo Larocque. “By modifying the oscillation direction of the light field along an “unframed” optical knot, we were able to assign a frame to the latter by “gluing” together the lines traced out by these oscillating fields.”
According to the researchers, structured light beams are being widely exploited for encoding and distributing information.
“So far, these applications have been limited to physical quantities which can be recognized by observing the beam at a given position,” said uOttawa Postdoctoral Fellow and co-author of this study, Dr. Alessio D’Errico.
“Our work shows that the number of twists in the ribbon orientation in conjunction with prime number factorization can be used to extract a so-called “braid representation” of the knot.”
“The structural features of these objects can be used to specify quantum information processing programs,” added Hugo Larocque. “In a situation where this program would want to be kept secret while disseminating it between various parties, one would need a means of encrypting this “braid” and later deciphering it.
“Our work addresses this issue by proposing to use our optical framed knot as an encryption object for these programs which can later be recovered by the braid extraction method that we also introduced.”
“For the first time, these complicated 3D structures have been exploited to develop new methods for the distribution of secret cryptographic keys. Moreover, there is a wide and strong interest in exploiting topological concepts in quantum computation, communication and dissipation-free electronics. Knots are described by specific topological properties too, which were not considered so far for cryptographic protocols.”
“Current technologies give us the possibility to manipulate, with high accuracy, the different features characterizing a light beam, such as intensity, phase, wavelength and polarization,” said Larocque.
“This allows to encode and decode information with all-optical methods. Quantum and classical cryptographic protocols have been devised exploiting these different degrees of freedom.”
“Our work opens the way to the use of more complex topological structures hidden in the propagation of a laser beam for distributing secret cryptographic keys.”
“Moreover, the experimental and theoretical techniques we developed may help find new experimental approaches to topological quantum computation, which promises to surpass noise-related issues in current quantum computing technologies,” added Dr. Ebrahim Karimi.
CISOs are conflicted about how their companies can best reposition themselves to address the sudden and rapid shift to remote work caused by the pandemic, a Hysolate research reveals.
The story emerging from the data in the study is clear:
- COVID-19 has accelerated the arrival of the remote-first era.
- Legacy remote access solutions such as virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI), desktop-as-a-service (DaaS), and virtual private networks (VPN), among others, leave much to be desired in the eyes of CISOs and are not well suited to handle many of the new demands of the remote-first era.
- Half of CISOs believe that security measures are impacting productivity when scaling remote-first policies.
- Bring-your-own-PC (BYOPC) policies further complicate organizations’ approaches to secure remote access.
Remote work becoming a permanent workflow
Beyond the overwhelming consensus that work-from-home is here to stay (87 percent of respondents believe remote work has become a permanent workflow in their companies’ operations), the study reveals that there is no singular best practice or market-leading approach to enabling workers in the remote-first era.
There is no prevailing solution in place to provide secure remote access to corporate assets:
- 24 percent of survey respondents utilize VPN, and more than half of these also employ split tunneling, a practice that allows users to access dissimilar security domains at the same time, to reduce the organization’s VPN loads and traffic backhauling. However, of those that use split tunneling, two-thirds of CISOs express concerns about the security of the split tunneling approach.
- 36 percent deploy VDI or DaaS. However, of those CISOs that utilize VDI or DaaS, only 18 percent say their employees are happy with their company’s VDI or DaaS solution. Further, dissatisfaction with these legacy remote access solutions isn’t limited to user experience; more than three-quarters of CISOs feel that their return on investment in VDI or DaaS has been medium to low.
Remote security policies issues
CISOs are also grappling with what their remote security policies should be in the new remote-first era:
- 26 percent of CISOs surveyed have introduced more stringent endpoint security and corporate access measures since the arrival of the pandemic.
- 35 percent have relaxed their security policies in order to foster greater productivity among remote workers.
- 39 percent have left their security policies the same.
More than 60 percent of companies felt that they weren’t ready for the changes that the proliferation of the pandemic forced. What is uncertain is whether the other 39 percent who have made no changes are standing pat because they are comfortable with their company’s security posture or because they don’t know what changes to make.
CISOs scramble to enable remote work and maintain security
“But when we surveyed CISOs who were scrambling to scale their remote workforce IT operations in light of the pandemic, it became clear how important worker productivity has now become and that legacy solutions like VPN, VDI and DaaS just can’t handle the demands of the new remote-first reality.”
Web browsing restrictions and BYOPC policies further muddy the remote-first waters. Sixty-two percent of CISOs said their companies restrict access to certain websites on corporate devices, while 22 percent say their companies do not allow access to corporate networks or applications from a non-corporate device.
The confusion indicated by the mixed results of the survey report is enough to cause many CISOs a sleepless night. In fact, the varied response trend carried over to the one unconventional question asked in the study regarding pandemic indulgences: 20 percent of CISOs report drinking more wine during the COVID-19 crisis; 32 percent drink more coffee; 8 percent choose whiskey; and, perhaps in what should come as a surprise to no one, 40 percent chose “All of the Above.”
The COVID-19 pandemic has largely proven to be an accelerator of cloud adoption and extension and will continue to drive a faster conversion to cloud-centric IT.
Global spending on cloud services to rise
According to IDC, total global spending on cloud services, the hardware and software components underpinning cloud services, and the professional and managed services opportunities around cloud services will surpass $1 trillion in 2024 while sustaining a double-digit compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.7%.
“Cloud in all its permutations – hardware/software/services/as a service as well as public/private/hybrid/multi/edge – will play ever greater, and even dominant, roles across the IT industry for the foreseeable future,” said Richard L. Villars, Group VP, Worldwide Research at IDC.
“By the end of 2021, based on lessons learned in the pandemic, most enterprises will put a mechanism in place to accelerate their shift to cloud-centric digital infrastructure and application services twice as fast as before the pandemic.”
Strongest growth in the as a service category
The strongest growth in cloud revenues will come in the as a service category – public (shared) cloud services and dedicated (private) cloud services. This category, which is also the largest category in terms of overall revenues, is forecast to deliver a five-year CAGR of 21.0%.
By 2024, the as a service category will account for more than 60% of all cloud revenues worldwide. The services category, which includes cloud-related professional services and cloud-related management services, will be the second largest category in terms of revenue but will experience the slowest growth with an 8.3% CAGR. This is due to a variety of factors, including greater use of automation in cloud migrations.
The smallest cloud category, infrastructure build, which includes hardware, software, and support for enterprise private clouds and service provider public clouds, will enjoy solid growth (11.1% CAGR) over the forecast period.
Factors driving the cloud market forward
While the impact of COVID-19 could have some negative effects on cloud adoption over the next several years, there are a number of factors that are driving the cloud market forward.
- The ecosystem of tech companies helping customers migrate to cloud environments, create new innovations in the cloud, and manage their expanding cloud environments will enable enterprises to meet their accelerated schedules for moving to cloud.
- The emergence of consumption-based IT offerings are aimed at leveraging public cloud-like capabilities in an on-premises environment that reduces the complexity and restructures the cost for enterprises that want additional security, dedicated resources, and more granular management capabilities.
- The adoption of cloud services should enable organizations to shift IT from maintenance of legacy IT to new digital transformation initiatives, which can lead to new business revenue and competitiveness as well as create new opportunities for suppliers of professional services.
- Hybrid cloud has become central to successful digital transformation efforts by defining an IT architectural approach, an IT investment strategy, and an IT staffing model that ensures the enterprise can achieve the optimal balance across dimensions without sacrificing performance, reliability, or control.
The Hewlett Foundation just announced its top five ideas in its Cybersecurity Visuals Challenge. The problem Hewlett is trying to solve is the dearth of good visuals for cybersecurity. A Google Images Search demonstrates the problem: locks, fingerprints, hands on laptops, scary looking hackers in black hoodies. Hewlett wanted to go beyond those tropes.
I really liked the idea, but find the results underwhelming. It’s a hard problem.
Hewlett press release.
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.
The Sandworm Team hacking group is part of Unit 74455 of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), the US Department of Justice (DoJ) claimed as it unsealed an indictment against six hackers and alleged members on Monday.
Sandworm Team attacks
“These GRU hackers and their co-conspirators engaged in computer intrusions and attacks intended to support Russian government efforts to undermine, retaliate against, or otherwise destabilize: Ukraine; Georgia; elections in France; efforts to hold Russia accountable for its use of a weapons-grade nerve agent, Novichok, on foreign soil; and the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games after Russian athletes were banned from participating under their nation’s flag, as a consequence of Russian government-sponsored doping effort,” the DoJ alleges.
“Their computer attacks used some of the world’s most destructive malware to date, including: KillDisk and Industroyer, which each caused blackouts in Ukraine; NotPetya, which caused nearly $1 billion in losses to the three victims identified in the indictment alone; and Olympic Destroyer, which disrupted thousands of computers used to support the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics.”
At the same time, the UK National Cyber Security Centre says that they asses “with high confidence” that the group has been actively targeting organizations involved in the 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games before they were postponed.
“In the attacks on the 2018 Games, the GRU’s cyber unit attempted to disguise itself as North Korean and Chinese hackers when it targeted the opening ceremony. It went on to target broadcasters, a ski resort, Olympic officials and sponsors of the games. The GRU deployed data-deletion malware against the Winter Games IT systems and targeted devices across the Republic of Korea using VPNFilter,” the UK NCSC said.
“The NCSC assesses that the incident was intended to sabotage the running of the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, as the malware was designed to wipe data from and disable computers and networks. Administrators worked to isolate the malware and replace the affected computers, preventing potential disruption.”
The UK government confirmed their prior assessments that many of the aforementioned attacks had been the work of the Russian GRU.
Sandworm Team hackers
Sandworm Team (aka “Telebots,” “Voodoo Bear,” “Iron Viking,” and “BlackEnergy”) is the group behind many conspicuous attacks in the last half a decade, the DoJ claims, all allegedly performed under the aegis of the Russian government.
The six alleged Sandworm Team hackers against which the indictments have been brought were responsible for a variety of tasks:
One of them, Anatoliy Kovalev, has been previously charged by a US court “with conspiring to gain unauthorized access into the computers of US persons and entities involved in the administration of the 2016 US elections,” the DoJ noted.
The US investigation into the group has lasted for several years, and had help from Ukrainian authorities, the Governments of the Republic of Korea and New Zealand, Georgian authorities, and the United Kingdom’s intelligence services, victims, and several IT and IT security companies.
Political and other ramifications
Warrants for the arrest of the six alleged Sandworm Team members have been drawn, but chances are slim-to-nonexistent that arrests will be performed in the near or far future.
The Russian government’s official position is that the accusations are unbased and part of an “information war against Russia”.
Russia starts responding to “accusations” of hacking operations. Chairman of the State Parliament committee on international affairs Dmitry Novikov says this is part of “information war against Russia”. https://t.co/ifSuCM23VN
— Lukasz Olejnik (@lukOlejnik) October 20, 2020
It’s unusual to see the US mount criminal charges against intelligence officers that were engaged in cyber-espionage operations outside the US, but the rationale here is that many of the attacks resulted in real-world consequences that were aimed at undermining the target countries’ governments and destabilizing the countries themselves, and that they affected individuals, civilian critical infrastructure (including organizations in the US), and private sector companies.
“The crimes committed by Russian government officials were against real victims who suffered real harm. We have an obligation to hold accountable those who commit crimes – no matter where they reside and no matter for whom they work – in order to seek justice on behalf of these victims,” commented US Attorney Scott W. Brady for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
There are currently no laws and norms regulating cyber attacks and cyber espionage in peacetime, but earlier this year Russian Federation president Vladimir Putin called for an agreement between Russia and the US that would guarantee the two nations would not try to meddle with each other’s elections and internal affairs via “cyber” means.
This latest round of indictments by the US is unlikely to act as a deterrent but, as Dr. Panayotis Yannakogeorgos recently told Help Net Security, indictments and public attribution of attacks serve several other purposes.
Another interesting result of this indictment may be felt by insurance companies and their customers that have suffered disruption due to cyber attacks mounted by nation-states. Some of their insurance policies may not cover cyber incidents that could be considered an “act of war” (e.g., the NotPetya attacks).
We are beginning to shift away from what has long been our first and last line of defense: the password. It’s an exciting time. Since the beginning, passwords have aggravated people. Meanwhile, passwords have become the de facto first step in most attacks. Yet I can’t help but think, what will the consequences of our actions be?
Intended and unintended consequences
Back when overhead cameras came to the express toll routes in Ontario, Canada, it wasn’t long before the SQL injection to drop tables made its way onto bumper stickers. More recently in California, researcher Joe Tartaro purchased a license plate that said NULL. With the bumper stickers, the story goes, everyone sharing the road would get a few hours of toll-free driving. But with the NULL license plate? Tartaro ended up on the hook for every traffic ticket with no plate specified, to the tune of thousands of dollars.
One organization I advised recently completed an initiative to reduce the number of agents on the endpoint. In a year when many are extending the lifespan and performance of endpoints while eliminating location-dependent security controls, this shift makes strategic sense.
Another CISO I spoke with recently consolidated multi-factor authenticators onto a single platform. Standardizing the user experience and reducing costs is always a pragmatic move. Yet these moves limited future moves. In both cases, any initiative by the security team which changed authenticators or added agents ended up stuck in park, waiting for a greenlight.
Be careful not to limit future moves
To make moves that open up possibilities, security teams think along two lines: usability and defensibility. That is, how will the change impact the workforce, near term and long term? On the opposite angle, how will the change affect criminal behavior, near term and long term?
Whether decreasing the number of passwords required through single sign-on (SSO) or eliminating the password altogether in favor of a strong authentication factor (passwordless), the priority is on the workforce experience. The number one reason for tackling the password problem given by security leaders is improving the user experience. It is a rare security control that makes people’s lives easier and leadership wants to take full advantage.
There are two considerations when planning for usability. The first is ensuring the tactic addresses the common friction points. For example, with passwordless, does the approach provide access to devices and applications people work with? Is it more convenient and faster what they do today? The second consideration is evaluating what the tactic allows the security team to do next. Does the approach to passwordless or SSO block a future initiative due to lock-in? Or will the change enable us to take future steps to secure authentication?
The one thing we know for certain is, whatever steps we take, criminals will take steps to get around us. In the sixty years since the first password leak, we’ve done everything we can, using both machine and man. We’ve encrypted passwords. We’ve hashed them. We increased key length and algorithm strength. At the same time, we’ve asked users to create longer passwords, more complex passwords, unique passwords. We’ve provided security awareness training. None of these steps were taken in a vacuum. Criminals cracked files, created rainbow tables, brute-forced and phished credentials. Sixty years of experience suggests the advancement we make will be met with an advanced attack.
We must increase the trust in authentication while increasing usability, and we must take steps that open up future options. Security teams can increase trust by pairing user authentication with device authentication. Now the adversary must both compromise the authentication and gain access to the device.
To reduce the likelihood of device compromise, set policies to prevent unpatched, insecure, infected, or compromised devices from authenticating. The likelihood can be even further reduced by capturing telemetry, modeling activity, and comparing activity to the user’s baseline. Now the adversary must compromise authentication, gain access to the endpoint device, avoid endpoint detection, and avoid behavior analytics.
Technology is full of unintended consequences. Some lead to tollfree drives and others lead to unexpected fees. Some open new opportunities, others new vulnerabilities. Today, many are moving to improve user experience by reducing or removing passwords. The consequences won’t be known immediately. We must ensure our approach meets the use cases the workforce cares about while positioning us to address longer-term goals and challenges.
Additionally, we must get ahead of adversaries and criminals. With device trust and behavior analytics, we must increase trust in passwordless authentication. We can’t predict what is to come, but these are steps security teams can take today to better position and protect our organizations.
What is confidential computing? Can it strengthen enterprise security? Sam Lugani, Lead Security PMM, Google Workspace & GCP, answers these and other questions in this Help Net Security interview.
How does confidential computing enhance the overall security of a complex enterprise architecture?
We’ve all heard about encryption in-transit and at-rest, but as organizations prepare to move their workloads to the cloud, one of the biggest challenges they face is how to process sensitive data while still keeping it private. However, when data is being processed, there hasn’t been an easy solution to keep it encrypted.
Confidential computing is a breakthrough technology which encrypts data in-use – while it is being processed. It creates a future where private and encrypted services become the cloud standard.
At Google Cloud, we believe this transformational technology will help instill confidence that customer data is not being exposed to cloud providers or susceptible to insider risks.
Confidential computing has moved from research projects into worldwide deployed solutions. What are the prerequisites for delivering confidential computing across both on-prem and cloud environments?
Running workloads confidentially will differ based on what services and tools you use, but one thing is given – organizations don’t want to compromise on usability and performance, at the cost of security.
Those running Google Cloud can seamlessly take advantage of the products in our portfolio, Confidential VMs and Confidential GKE Nodes.
All customer workloads that run in VMs or containers today, can run as a confidential without significant performance impact. The best part is that we have worked hard to simplify the complexity. One checkbox—it’s that simple.
What type of investments does confidential computing require? What technologies and techniques are involved?
To deliver on the promise of confidential computing, customers need to take advantage of security technology offered by modern, high-performance CPUs, which is why Google Cloud’s Confidential VMs run on N2D series VMs powered by 2nd Gen AMD EPYC processors.
To support these environments, we also had to update our own hypervisor and low-level platform stack while also working closely with the open source Linux community and modern operating system distributors to ensure that they can support the technology.
Networking and storage drivers are also critical to the deployment of secure workloads and we had to ensure we were capable of handling confidential computing traffic.
How is confidential computing helping large organizations with a massive work-from-home movement?
As we entered the first few months of dealing with COVID-19, many organizations expected a slowdown in their digital strategy. Instead, we saw the opposite – most customers accelerated their use of cloud-based services. Today, enterprises have to manage a new normal which includes a distributed workforce and new digital strategies.
With workforces dispersed, confidential computing can help organizations collaborate on sensitive workloads in the cloud across geographies and competitors, all while preserving privacy of confidential datasets. This can lead to the development of transformation technologies – imagine, for example, being able to more quickly build vaccines and cure diseases as a result of this secure collaboration.
How do you see the work of the Confidential Computing Consortium evolving in the near future?
Cloud providers, hardware manufacturers, and software vendors all need to work together to define standards to advance confidential computing. As the technology garners more interest, sustained industry collaboration such as the Consortium will be key to helping realize the true potential of confidential computing.