What's new arround internet
| Src | Date (GMT) | Titre | Description | Tags | Stories | Notes |
 |
2023-06-27 13:00:00 | Cyberheistnews Vol 13 # 26 [Eyes Open] La FTC révèle les cinq dernières escroqueries par SMS CyberheistNews Vol 13 #26 [Eyes Open] The FTC Reveals the Latest Top Five Text Message Scams (lien direct) |
CyberheistNews Vol 13 #26 | June 27th, 2023
[Eyes Open] The FTC Reveals the Latest Top Five Text Message Scams
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has published a data spotlight outlining the most common text message scams. Phony bank fraud prevention alerts were the most common type of text scam last year. "Reports about texts impersonating banks are up nearly tenfold since 2019 with median reported individual losses of $3,000 last year," the report says.
These are the top five text scams reported by the FTC:
Copycat bank fraud prevention alerts
Bogus "gifts" that can cost you
Fake package delivery problems
Phony job offers
Not-really-from-Amazon security alerts
"People get a text supposedly from a bank asking them to call a number ASAP about suspicious activity or to reply YES or NO to verify whether a transaction was authorized. If they reply, they\'ll get a call from a phony \'fraud department\' claiming they want to \'help get your money back.\' What they really want to do is make unauthorized transfers.
"What\'s more, they may ask for personal information like Social Security numbers, setting people up for possible identity theft."
Fake gift card offers took second place, followed by phony package delivery problems. "Scammers understand how our shopping habits have changed and have updated their sleazy tactics accordingly," the FTC says. "People may get a text pretending to be from the U.S. Postal Service, FedEx, or UPS claiming there\'s a problem with a delivery.
"The text links to a convincing-looking – but utterly bogus – website that asks for a credit card number to cover a small \'redelivery fee.\'"
Scammers also target job seekers with bogus job offers in an attempt to steal their money and personal information. "With workplaces in transition, some scammers are using texts to perpetrate old-school forms of fraud – for example, fake \'mystery shopper\' jobs or bogus money-making offers for driving around with cars wrapped in ads," the report says.
"Other texts target people who post their resumes on employment websites. They claim to offer jobs and even send job seekers checks, usually with instructions to send some of the money to a different address for materials, training, or the like. By the time the check bounces, the person\'s money – and the phony \'employer\' – are long gone."
Finally, scammers impersonate Amazon and send fake security alerts to trick victims into sending money. "People may get what looks like a message from \'Amazon,\' asking to verify a big-ticket order they didn\'t place," the FTC says. "Concerned |
Ransomware Spam Malware Hack Tool Threat | FedEx APT 28 APT 15 ChatGPT ChatGPT | ★★ |
 |
2022-05-19 02:00:00 | WannaCry 5 years on: Still a top threat (lien direct) | Who doesn't love an anniversary and the opportunity to reminisce about “where we were” when an historical event happened? Such is the case over the last several days when it comes to remembering WannaCry, the ransomware that infected thousands of computers five years ago and cost companies all over the world billions of dollars in damages.WannaCry broke onto the infosec scene on May 12, 2017. Taking advantage of the vulnerable version of the Server Message Block (SMB) protocol, it ultimately infected approximately 200,000+ machines in more than 150 countries. While Microsoft had issued a patch for the SMB flaw more than a month before the attacks began, millions of computers had not been unpatched against the bug. The largest ransomware attack ever, it impacted several big names globally, including the UK's National Health Service, US delivery giant FedEx, and Deutsche Bahn, the German railway company.To read this article in full, please click here | Ransomware Threat | FedEx Wannacry | |
 |
2019-05-29 20:16:09 | Your threat model is wrong (lien direct) | Several subjects have come up with the past week that all come down to the same thing: your threat model is wrong. Instead of addressing the the threat that exists, you've morphed the threat into something else that you'd rather deal with, or which is easier to understand.PhishingAn example is this question that misunderstands the threat of "phishing":Should failing multiple phishing tests be grounds for firing? I ran into a guy at a recent conference, said his employer fired people for repeatedly falling for (simulated) phishing attacks. I talked to experts, who weren't wild about this disincentive. https://t.co/eRYPZ9qkzB pic.twitter.com/Q1aqCmkrWL- briankrebs (@briankrebs) May 29, 2019The (wrong) threat model is here is that phishing is an email that smart users with training can identify and avoid. This isn't true.Good phishing messages are indistinguishable from legitimate messages. Said another way, a lot of legitimate messages are in fact phishing messages, such as when HR sends out a message saying "log into this website with your organization username/password".Recently, my university sent me an email for mandatory Title IX training, not digitally signed, with an external link to the training, that requested my university login creds for access, that was sent from an external address but from the Title IX coordinator.- Tyler Pieron (@tyler_pieron) May 29, 2019Yes, it's amazing how easily stupid employees are tricked by the most obvious of phishing messages, and you want to point and laugh at them. But frankly, you want the idiot employees doing this. The more obvious phishing attempts are the least harmful and a good test of the rest of your security -- which should be based on the assumption that users will frequently fall for phishing.In other words, if you paid attention to the threat model, you'd be mitigating the threat in other ways and not even bother training employees. You'd be firing HR idiots for phishing employees, not punishing employees for getting tricked. Your systems would be resilient against successful phishes, such as using two-factor authentication.IoT securityAfter the Mirai worm, government types pushed for laws to secure IoT devices, as billions of insecure devices like TVs, cars, security cameras, and toasters are added to the Internet. Everyone is afraid of the next Mirai-type worm. For example, they are pushing for devices to be auto-updated.But auto-updates are a bigger threat than worms.Since Mirai, roughly 10-billion new IoT devices have been added to the Internet, yet there hasn't been a Mirai-sized worm. Why is that? After 10-billion new IoT devices, it's still Windows and not IoT that is the main problem.The answer is that number, 10-billion. Internet worms work by guessing IPv4 addresses, of which there are only 4-billion. You can't have 10-billion new devices on the public IPv4 addresses because there simply aren't enough addresses. Instead, those 10-billion devices are almost entirely being put on private ne | Ransomware Tool Vulnerability Threat Guideline | FedEx NotPetya | |
|
2018-06-27 15:49:15 | Lessons from nPetya one year later (lien direct) | This is the one year anniversary of NotPetya. It was probably the most expensive single hacker attack in history (so far), with FedEx estimating it cost them $300 million. Shipping giant Maersk and drug giant Merck suffered losses on a similar scale. Many are discussing lessons we should learn from this, but they are the wrong lessons.An example is this quote in a recent article:"One year on from NotPetya, it seems lessons still haven't been learned. A lack of regular patching of outdated systems because of the issues of downtime and disruption to organisations was the path through which both NotPetya and WannaCry spread, and this fundamental problem remains." This is an attractive claim. It describes the problem in terms of people being "weak" and that the solution is to be "strong". If only organizations where strong enough, willing to deal with downtime and disruption, then problems like this wouldn't happen.But this is wrong, at least in the case of NotPetya.NotPetya's spread was initiated through the Ukraining company MeDoc, which provided tax accounting software. It had an auto-update process for keeping its software up-to-date. This was subverted in order to deliver the initial NotPetya infection. Patching had nothing to do with this. Other common security controls like firewalls were also bypassed.Auto-updates and cloud-management of software and IoT devices is becoming the norm. This creates a danger for such "supply chain" attacks, where the supplier of the product gets compromised, spreading an infection to all their customers. The lesson organizations need to learn about this is how such infections can be contained. One way is to firewall such products away from the core network. Another solution is port-isolation/microsegmentation, that limits the spread after an initial infection.Once NotPetya got into an organization, it spread laterally. The chief way it did this was through Mimikatz/PsExec, reusing Windows credentials. It stole whatever login information it could get from the infected machine and used it to try to log on to other Windows machines. If it got lucky getting domain administrator credentials, it then spread to the entire Windows domain. This was the primary method of spreading, not the unpatched ETERNALBLUE vulnerability. This is why it was so devastating to companies like Maersk: it wasn't a matter of a few unpatched systems getting infected, it was a matter of losing entire domains, including the backup systems.Such spreading through Windows credentials continues to plague organizations. A good example is the recent ransomware infection of the City of Atlanta that spread much the same way. The limits of the worm were the limits of domain trust relationships. For example, it didn't infect the city airport because that Windows domain is separate from the city's domains.This is the most pressing lesson organizations need to learn, the one they are ignoring. They need to do more to prevent desktops from infecting each other, such as through port-isolation/microsegmentation. They need to control the spread of administrative credentials within the organization. A lot of organizations put the same local admin account on every workstation which makes the spread of NotPetya style worms trivial. They need to reevaluate trust relationships between domains, so that the admin of one can't infect the others.These solutions are difficult, which is why news articles don't mention them. You don't have to know anything about security to proclaim "the problem is lack of patches". It's moral authority, chastising the weak, rather than a proscription of what to do. Solving supply chain hacks and Windows credential sharing, though, is hard. I don't know any universal solution to this -- I'd have to thoroughly analyze your network and business in order to | Ransomware Malware Patching | FedEx NotPetya Wannacry |
1
We have: 4 articles.
We have: 4 articles.
To see everything:
Our RSS (filtrered)
