The ransomware plague cost the world over $1 billion

Group-IB has presented a report which examines key shifts in the cybercrime world internationally between H2 2019 and H1 2020 and gives forecasts for the coming year. The most severe financial damage has occurred as a result of ransomware activity.

ransomware cost 2020

The past year — a harrowing period for the world economy — culminated in the spike of cybercrime. It was also marked by the rise of the underground market for selling access to corporate networks and an over two-fold growth of the carding market. The stand-off between various pro-government hacker groups saw new players come onto the scene, while some previously known groups resumed their operations.

The report examines various aspects of cybercrime industry operations and predicts changes to the threat landscape for various sectors, namely the financial industry, telecommunications, retail, manufacturing, and the energy sector. The authors also analyze campaigns targeting critical infrastructure facilities, which are an increasingly frequent target of intelligence services worldwide.

Forecasts and recommendations set out seek to prevent financial damage and manufacturing downtimes. Its purpose is also to help companies adopt preventive measures for counteracting targeted attacks, cyber espionage, and cyberterrorist operations.

The cost of ransomware

Late 2019 and all of 2020 were marked by an unprecedented surge in ransomware attacks. Neither private sector companies nor government agencies turned out to be immune to the ransomware plague.

Over the reporting period, more than 500 successful ransomware attacks in more than 45 countries were reported. Since attackers are motivated by financial gain alone, any company regardless of size and industry could fall victim to ransomware attacks.

Meanwhile, if the necessary technical toolsets and data restoring capabilities are not in place, ransomware attacks could not only cause downtime in manufacturing but also bring operations to a standstill.

According to conservative estimates, the total financial damage from ransomware operations amounted to over $1 billion ($1,005,186,000), but the actual damage is likely to be much higher. Victims often remain silent about incidents and pay ransoms quietly, while attackers do not always publish data from compromised networks.

A major ransomware outbreak was detected in the United States, with the country accounting for about 60% of all known incidents. The US is followed by European countries (mainly the UK, France, and Germany), which together make up roughly 20% of all ransomware attacks.

Countries of North and South America (excluding the US) are at 10% and Asian states are at 7%. The top five most frequently attacked industries include manufacturing (94 victims), retail (51 victims), state agencies (39 victims), healthcare (38 victims), and construction (30 victims).

Maze and REvil are considered to have the largest appetite: the operators of these two strains are believed to be behind more than half of all successful attacks. Ryuk, NetWalker, and DoppelPaymer come second.

The ransomware pandemic was triggered by an active development of private and public affiliate programs that bring together ransomware operators and cybercriminals involved in compromising corporate networks.

Another reason for an increase in ransomware attacks is that traditional security solutions, still widely used by a lot of companies on the market, very often fail to detect and block ransomware activity at early stages.

Ransomware operators buy access and then encrypt devices on the network. After receiving the ransom from the victim, they pay a fixed rate to their partners under the affiliate program.

The main ways to gain access to corporate networks include brute-force attacks on remote access interfaces (RDP, SSH, VPN), malware (e.g., downloaders), and new types of botnets (brute-force botnets). The latter are used for distributed brute-force attacks from a large number of infected devices, including servers.

In late 2019, ransomware operators adopted a new technique. They began downloading all the information from victim organizations and then blackmailed them to increase the chances of the ransom being paid.

Maze (who allegedly called it quits not long ago) pioneered the tactic of publishing sensitive data as leverage to extort money. If a victim refuses to pay the ransom, they risk not only losing all their data but also having it leaked. In June 2020, REvil started auctioning stolen data.

Seven new APT groups joined the global intelligence service stand-off

Military operations conducted by various intelligence services are becoming increasingly common. A continuing trend was identified, where physical destruction of infrastructure is replacing espionage. Attacker toolkits are being updated with instruments intended for attacks on air-gapped networks.

The nuclear industry is turning into the number one target for state-sponsored threat actors. Unlike the previous reporting period, during which no attacks were observed, the current one was marked by attacks on nuclear energy facilities in Iran and India.

A blatant attack was attempted in Israel, where threat actors gained access to some of Israel’s water treatment systems and tried altering water chlorine levels. Had it been successful, the attack would have led to water shortages or even civilian casualties.

State-sponsored APT groups are not losing interest in the telecommunications sector. Over the review period, it was targeted by at least 11 groups affiliated with intelligence services. Threat actors’ main goals remain spying on telecommunications operators or attempts to disable infrastructure.

Threat actors have also set a new record in DDoS attack power: 2.3 Tb per second and 809 million packets per second. BGP hijacking and route leaks remain a serious problem as well. Over the past year, nine significant cases have been made public.

Most state-sponsored threat actors originate from China (23), followed by Iran (8 APT groups), North Korea and Russia (4 APT groups each), India (3), and Pakistan and Gaza (2 each). South Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam are reported to have only one APT group each.

According to data analyzed, Asia-Pacific became the most actively attacked region by state-sponsored threat actors. A total of 34 campaigns were carried out in this region, and APT groups from China, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan were the most active.

At least 22 campaigns were recorded on the European continent, with attacks carried out by APT groups from China, Pakistan, Russia, and Iran. Middle East and Africa were the scene of 18 campaigns conducted by pro-government attackers from Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, China, and Gaza.

Cybersecurity researchers have also detected seven previously unknown APT groups, namely Tortoiseshell (Iran),Poison Carp (China), Higaisa (South Korea), AVIVORE (China), Nuo Chong Lions (Saudi Arabia), as well as Chimera and WildPressure, whose geographical affiliation remains unknown. In addition, six known groups that remained unnoticed in recent years resumed their operations.

Sales of access to compromised corporate networks grow four-fold

Sales of access to compromised corporate networks have been increasing from year to year and peaked in 2020. It is difficult to assess the size of the market for selling access, however, as offers published on underground forums often do not include the price, while some deals are cut in private.

Nevertheless, technologies for monitoring underground forums (which make it possible to see deleted and hidden posts) helped the experts assess the total market size for access sold in the review period (H2 2019 to H1 2020): $6.2 million. This is a four-fold increase compared to the previous review period (H2 2018 to H1 2019), when it totaled $1.6 million.

Surprisingly, state-sponsored attackers joined this segment of the cybercriminal market seeking additional revenue. As such, in the summer of 2020, on an underground forum a seller offered access to several networks, including some belonging to US government departments, defense contractors (Airbus, Boeing, etc.), IT giants, and media companies. The cost of the access to the companies listed was close to $5 million.

In H1 2020 alone, 277 offers of access to corporate networks were put up for sale on underground forums. The number of sellers has also grown. During that period, 63 sellers were active, and 52 of them began selling access in 2020.

For comparison, during all of 2018, only 37 access sellers were active, while in 2019 there were 50 sellers who offered access to 130 corporate networks. In total, the sales of corporate network access grew by 162% compared to the previous period (138 offers against 362).

After analyzing offers of access to corporate networks, experts found correlations with ransomware attacks: most threat actors offered access to US companies (27%), while manufacturing was the most frequently attacked industry in 2019 (10.5%). In 2020, access to state agency networks (10.5%), educational institutions (10.5%), and IT companies (9%) was high in demand.

It should be noted that sellers of access to corporate networks increasingly rarely mention company names, their geographical location and industry, which makes it almost impossible to identify the victim without contacting the attackers.

Selling access to a company’s network is usually only one stage of the attack: the privileges gained might be used for both launching ransomware and stealing data, with the aim of later selling it on underground forums or spying.

Market of stolen credit card data reached almost $2 billion

Over the review period, the carding market grew by 116%, from $880 million to $1.9 billion. The quick growth applies to both textual data (bank card numbers, expiration dates, holder names, addresses, CVVs) and dumps (magnetic stripe data). The amount of textual data offered for sale increased by 133%, from 12.5 to 28.3 million cards, while dumps surged by 55%, from 41 to 63.7 million. The maximum price for card textual data is $150 and $500 for a dump.

Dumps are mainly obtained by infecting computers with connected POS terminals with special Trojans and thereby collecting data from random-access memory. Over the review period, 14 Trojans used for collecting dumps were found to be active.

Cybercriminals seek to obtain data relating to credit and debit cards issued by US banks: these account for over 92% of all compromised bank cards. Bank card data of bank customers in India and South Korea are the second and third most desirable targets for cybercriminals. Over the review period, the total price of all the bank card dumps offered for sale amounted to $1.5 billion, while textual data – to $361.7 million.

Textual data is collected through phishing websites and PC/Android banking Trojans, by compromising e-commerce websites, and by using JS sniffers. The latter were one of the main instruments for stealing large amounts of payment data over the past year. JS sniffers also became more popular in light of the trend of reselling access to various websites and organizations on underground forums.

Group-IB is currently monitoring the activities of 96 JS sniffer families. This is a 2.5-fold increase compared to the previous reporting period, during which there were 38 families on the company’s radar. According to the findings, over the past year nearly 460,000 bank cards were compromised using JS sniffers.

The threat of bank card data leaks is most acute for retail companies that have online sales channels, e-commerce companies that offer goods and services online, and banks that unwittingly become involved in incidents.

The main scenarios for illegally harvesting bank card data and most frequently attacked countries (the United States, India, South Korea) will remain the same. Latin America might become an increasingly attractive target for carders since it already has mature hacker community experienced in using Trojans for this purpose.

Phishing grows by 118%

Between H2 2019 and H1 2020, the number of phishing web resources found and blocked rose by 118% compared to the previous reporting period. Analysts mention the global pandemic and lockdowns as the main reasons: web-phishing, which is one of the simplest ways to earn money in the cybercriminal industry, attracted those who lost their incomes.

The increased demand for online purchases created a favorable environment for phishers. They quickly adapted to this trend and began carrying out phishing attacks on services and individual brands that previously did not have much financial appeal to them.

Scammers also changed their tactics. In previous years, attackers ended their campaigns after fraudulent websites were taken down and quickly switched to other brands. Today, they are automating their attacks instead and replacing the blocked pages with new ones.

Since the start of the year, there has been a rise in advanced social engineering, namely when multi-stage scenarios are used in phishing attacks. As part of such increasingly popular phishing schemes, threat actors first stake out the victim. They establish contact with the targeted individual (e.g., through a messenger), create an atmosphere of trust, and only then do they direct the victim to a phishing page.

One-time links turned out to be another phishing trend of the past year. After a user receives a link and clicks on it at least once, it will not be possible to obtain the same content again in order to collect evidence. This significantly complicates the process of taking down phishing resources.

Most web-phishing pages mimicked online services (39.6%). Phishers in particular gathered login credentials from user accounts on Microsoft, Netflix, Amazon, eBay, Valve Steam, etc. Online services were followed by email service providers (15.6%), financial organizations (15%), cloud storage systems (14.5%), payment services (6.6%), and bookmakers (2.2%).

25 vulnerabilities exploited by Chinese state-sponsored hackers

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.

vulnerabilities exploited Chinese hackers

“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.

Have you patched these top 10 routinely exploited vulnerabilities?

The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is urging organizations to patch a slew of old and new software vulnerabilities that are routinely exploited by foreign cyber actors and cyber criminals.

routinely exploited vulnerabilities

“Foreign cyber actors continue to exploit publicly known—and often dated—software vulnerabilities against broad target sets, including public and private sector organizations. Exploitation of these vulnerabilities often requires fewer resources as compared with zero-day exploits for which no patches are available,” the agency noted.

“A concerted campaign to patch these vulnerabilities would introduce friction into foreign adversaries’ operational tradecraft and force them to develop or acquire exploits that are more costly and less widely effective. A concerted patching campaign would also bolster network security by focusing scarce defensive resources on the observed activities of foreign adversaries.”

The most often exploited CVE-numbered vulnerabilities

The list of the ten most often exploited flaws between 2016 and 2019 includes seven affecting Microsoft offerings (Office, Windows, SharePoint, .NET Framework), one affecting Apache Struts, one Adobe Flash Player, and one Drupal.

They are as follows:

IT security professionals are advised to use this list alongside a similar one recently compiled by Recorded Future, which focuses on the ten most exploited vulnerabilities by cybercriminals in 2019.

In addition to all these flaws, CISA points to several others that have been under heavy exploitation in 2020:

Additional warnings and help

CISA has also warned organizations to check for oversights in their Microsoft O365 security configurations (and to implement these recommendations and to start fixing organizational cybersecurity weaknesses they might have.

“March 2020 brought an abrupt shift to work-from-home that necessitated, for many organizations, rapid deployment of cloud collaboration services, such as Microsoft Office 365. Malicious cyber actors are targeting organizations whose hasty deployment of Microsoft O365 may have led to oversights in security configurations and vulnerable to attack,” they noted.

Organizations can apply for CISA’s help in scanning internet-facing systems and web applications for vulnerabilities and misconfigurations – the agency offers free scanning and testing services (more info in the alert).

What the government infosec landscape will look this year

The information security landscape seems to evolve at a faster clip each year. The deluge of ever-changing threats, attack techniques and new breaches making headlines can be challenging to track and assess. That’s why each year the WatchGuard Threat Lab takes a step back to assess the world of cyber security and develop a series of predictions for what emerging trends will have the biggest impact.

government infosec landscape

Following the worldwide controversy over hacking that influenced the 2016 presidential election and the many widely publicized privacy and security incidents that have taken place since, we believe the government information security sphere is the stage upon which we’ll see two major security developments play out in 2020.

The first is that bad actors will target voter registration systems with the intent to generate voting havoc and trigger voter fraud alerts. The second is that we’ll see multiple states enact privacy regulations inspired by GDPR and the CCPA. Let’s take a look at how these two issues will unfold in 2020 and what you need to know to be prepared.

Impending voter registration systems hacks

Security researchers have proven many times over that voting machines are hackable, but most of them don’t expect threat actors to expend the vast amount of time and resources needed to successfully hack the 2020 presidential election voting results directly. Instead, these online adversaries will use subtler tactics in the coming months to tamper with the voting process at the state and local level.

The culprits behind previous election-related attacks are state-sponsored actors that are happy to execute highly effective, politically motivated misinformation campaigns across social media platforms, but appear to draw the line at actually altering the voting results themselves. In 2020, they’ll seek to build on the success they achieved in 2016. We believe they will target US voter registration systems to make it more difficult for legitimate voters to cast their ballot and attempt to cause widespread mistrust in the validity of vote counts. Indirectly influencing the election by creating confusion, fear, uncertainty and doubt will be their MO.

What can we do about it? For state and local government departments managing voter registration systems it will be important to perform security audits and find and fix potential vulnerabilities before the bad guys have a chance to exploit them.

While there’s not a tremendous amount the average voter can do to ward off election hacking attempts by state-sponsored cyber criminals, there are some basic things you should keep in mind to make sure your voice is heard on election day. First, double-check the status of your voter registration at least a week before the election. Monitor the news for any updates about voter registration database hacks leading up to the election and be sure to contact your local state voter authority if you’re concerned. Lastly, bring a printed confirmation of your completed voter registration and multiple forms of ID on election day (just in case).

An upsurge in state-level privacy legislation

The European Union made a global splash when it implemented the GDPR. Designed to provide better privacy for its citizens’ data (regardless of the location of the organizations with access to it), the historic law was initially met with cynicism and uncertainty (and even panic in some cases) due to its stringent criteria and heavy penalties for noncompliance.

That said, since its inception, the level of privacy the law provides for individuals has been well-received. People welcome the comfort of knowing that organizations are finally being incentivized to protect their privacy and held accountable for mishandling their data. It goes a long way to inspire confidence in the public when organizations like Google and Marriott are fined millions of euros for GDPR violations.

Massive organizations like Facebook continue to neglect their obligation to safeguard user data and America’s appetite for privacy seems to be growing with each passing data breach and scandal involving the sale of user data. That’s why in 2020 you should expect to see 10 or more states to enact privacy laws similar to GDPR.

In fact, California has already passed its own CCPA and will begin rolling out fines for violations by mid-year. Given that most states passed mandatory data breach disclosure laws in the mid-2000s and lawmakers still haven’t been able to pass a federal version to date, it’s unlikely that the movement to enact a federal privacy law will gain enough steam to pass in the near term. That said, the rising public outcry for data privacy makes it highly likely that individual states will take it upon themselves to follow in California’s footsteps and pass privacy acts of their own.

This momentum will grow in 2020, so it will be critical for businesses across the country to carefully study the CCPA requirements and prepare to make adjustments. Other states will use the CCPA as a reference point for developing similar regulations of their own. If you’re concerned with your own personal data privacy, contact your local representatives to push for state-level legislation and federal action as well.

The road ahead

The changing conditions within the government information security landscape impact every American business and individual in one way or another. We simply can’t afford to be ignorant or apathetic when it comes to matters of public privacy and security.

Whether it be state-sponsored attempts to interfere with the next election, emerging security and privacy regulations, or some other development, we should all strive to become more informed about and engaged in these issues.

Companies increasingly reporting attacks attributed to foreign governments

More than one in four security managers attribute attacks against their organization to cyberwarfare or nation-state activity, according to Radware.

attacks attributed to foreign governments

Nation-state intrusions soaring

In 2018, 19% of organizations believed they were attacked by a nation-state. That figure increased to 27% in 2019. Companies in North America were more likely to report nation-state attribution, at 36%.

“Nation-state intrusions are among the most difficult attacks to thwart because the agencies responsible often have significant resources, knowledge of potential zero-day exploits, and the patience to plan and execute operations,” says Anna Convery-Pelletier, Chief Marketing Officer at Radware.

“These attacks can result in the loss of sensitive trade, technological, or other data, and security teams may be at a distinct disadvantage.”

These findings come at a time of heightened anxiety for security managers. Organizations are increasingly turning to microservices, serverless architectures, and a mix of multiple cloud environments.

Two in five managers reported using a hybrid environment that included cloud and on-premises data centers, and two in five said they relied on more than one public cloud environment. However, only 10% of respondents felt that their data was more ​secure in public cloud environments.

Security is often an afterthought

As organizations adapt their network infrastructure to enjoy the benefits of these new paradigms (such as microservices and multi-cloud environments), they increase their attack surface and decrease the overall visibility into their traffic​.

For example, 22% of respondents don’t even know if they were attacked, 27% of those who were attacked don’t know the hacker’s motivations, 38% are not sure whether an IoT botnet hit their networks, and 46% are not sure if they suffered an encrypted DDoS attack.

Convery-Pelletier added, “This report finds that security professionals feel as though the battlefield is shifting under their feet. Companies are increasingly adding and relying upon new paradigms, like microservices, public and hybrid clouds, and IoT, which means the infrastructure is harder to monitor for attacks.

“These new technologies force a shift in security implementation into the development teams. Security is often an afterthought as businesses march forward, and there is a misconception that ‘good enough’ is enough.”

The emergence of 5G networks

As the push for 5G grows, there exists an important opportunity to build security into networks at its foundations. ​Despite the increasing buzz around 5G networks, only 26% of carriers responded that they felt well prepared for 5G deployment, while another 32% stated that they were somewhat prepared.

attacks attributed to foreign governments

Be careful what you wish for in terms of IoT

5G promises to advance organizations’ implementation of and the value they derive from IoT technologies, but that promise comes with a corresponding increase in the attack surface. ​When it comes to IoT connected devices, 44% of respondents said malware propagation was their top concern, while lack of visibility followed at 20% and Denial of Service at 20%.

Data loss is top concern

About 30% of businesses stated that data theft as a result of a breach was their top concern following an attack, down from 35% the previous year, followed by service outages at 23%. Meanwhile, 33% said that financial gain is a leading motivation for attacks.

Why the 2020 US presidential election is still vulnerable to foreign interference

With the international political situation becoming increasingly fraught and divisive, it is hard to ignore the shadow of foreign interference looming over electoral proceedings around the world.

2020 US presidential election

Not only are the US elections arguably some of the most influential on the global stage, but the infamous cyber attack on Clinton campaign manager John Podesta during the 2016 presidential elections was a watershed moment. The attack, which used email-based social engineering techniques to breach Podesta’s email account and leak thousands of emails, marked a move towards more overt and hostile cyber activity in the political arena.

The threat of foreign interference takes many forms, from the more subtle use of fake news and online trolls to confuse and frustrate the political discourse, to direct attacks on vulnerable voting infrastructure and to disrupt or breach political parties and individuals.

Four years on from the Podesta hack, email remains one of the most prominent weapons in the cyber attacker’s arsenal – and worryingly, the majority of political parties and candidates are still extremely vulnerable to email attacks.

The threat of political spear phishing

Email is the de facto tool of choice for the vast majority of cyber attacks and is exploited in a wide variety of attack types. When it comes to email-based attacks targeting the election cycle, there are two major categories – direct attacks on political candidates and their campaigns, and attacks targeting third parties such as potential voters and donors.

A direct attack along the lines of the 2016 email hack is perhaps the most obvious and overtly damaging outcome of cyber activity by foreign nation states. By targeting and derailing their political enemies, nation states may hope to empower a party that is better aligned with their own interests.

Sowing discord and unrest throughout the political scene at large can also weaken a country by delegitimizing the electoral process. Recent research from Agari that surveyed 803 registered US voters found just over seven in ten were either somewhat or very concerned about this kind of foreign interference in the 2020 election.

This fear is entirely justified, with North Korea, Iran and Russia reportedly having launched more than 2,700 phishing attacks against presidential campaigns and other high-value targets over the last year.

Targeted spear phishing attacks remain one of the most effective ways of breaching political candidates and their campaign staff. Just as we see with standard criminal attacks targeting organizations, threat actors use identity deception techniques to impersonate a trusted contact and trick their victim into sharing details via a phishing site.

This approach is extremely effective as the emails contain no malware for standard email security defenses to detect. Advanced threat actors are adept at crafting emails that look almost indistinguishable from the real thing or may even use a legitimate email account that has been compromised.

Defending against this threat requires going beyond traditional signature-based email security, and implementing more advanced measures that are able to pick up on subtle signs pointing to an imposter. Mismatched sender IDs are one the most common factors, but it is even possible to pick up on elements such as changes to the location and device used by the sender in the case of a compromised account.

Abusing trusted political identities

Threat actors are also using email deception to impersonate the trusted identities of political candidates themselves in order to attack their network of supporters such as potential voters and donors.

Targeting a candidate’s support base is a powerful vector for nation state threat actors aiming to disrupt and derail a campaign. Successfully infiltrating or impersonating campaign email accounts will for example enable threat actors to target voters and journalists with fake news or policy positions to damage the reputation of the candidate and sow confusion and distrust. Agari’s survey found 61 percent of voters would not vote for a candidate if they had previously received a phishing email using their identity.

Alongside nation state actors, the election cycle also presents a lucrative opportunity for more standard cybercriminals. Attackers can impersonate official donation request emails to divert campaign donations into their own bank accounts, defrauding individuals and depriving the campaign of much-needed funds.

To protect their voters and donors from criminals abusing their trusted identity, campaigns need to implement controls to monitor the use of their email domain. DMARC, a free-to-use email authentication, policy, and reporting protocol, is one of the most effective tools for achieving this. The protocol enables an organization to prevent unauthorized use of its domain, preventing common deceptive tactics such as domain spoofing. Once DMARC has been implemented, the organization must set it to either reject or quarantine to prevent malicious, non-authorized messages from delivery to the Inbox.

Lessons not learnt

Alarmingly, despite the powerful example set in the 2016 presidential elections, we have found that the level of email security is still woefully inadequate for all but a few of the 2020 campaign frontrunners. Agari found that just one of the 13 candidates polling above one percent has implemented the necessary precautions.

Democratic candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren has applied security measures to prevent deceptive email attacks on both her herself and her campaign staff, and attacks impersonating her campaign to target donors, voters and others. Every other candidate has either failed to implement email authentication, advanced email security, or both. Democratic favorite Senator Bernie Sanders and even the incumbent President Donald Trump are among those that lack defenses against fraud and breach attempts.

While many candidates do not have the dedicated staff and resources required to deploy these defenses, frontrunners with heavy political and financial backing and have little excuse.

With less than a year to go until voting begins for the 2020 election, all candidates must act urgently to secure their campaigns and protect their voters against the mounting threat of foreign interference.