Archive for Cyber Security
- Cyber-security and the vexed question of global rules
- UK Police launch more cyber e-crime hubs
- Creating a Common Operating Picture in Cyberspace
- Mikko Hypponen on the three types of online attacker
- NATO cyber defence and the New Strategic Concept
- Cyber attacks could run rings around London Olympics
- Raytheon acquires cyber security firm Pikewerks Corporation
- CSIS Significant Cyber Incidents
- Dont open that spam
Cyber-security and the vexed question of global rules
This report is made up of a survey of some 250 leading authorities worldwide and of interviews carried out in late 2011 and early 2012 with over 80 cyber security experts in government, companies, international organisations and academia.
It offers a global snapshot of current thinking about the cyber-threat and the measures that should be taken to defend against it, and assesses the way ahead. It is aimed at the influential layperson, and deliberately avoids specialised language.
The first part of this two-part report concentrates on the main issues that are slowing progress, starting with the absence of agreement on what we mean by terms like cyber-war or cyber-attack. It reflects sharp divisions over the rights of individuals and states in cyber-space. Most Western countries believe that freedom of access to the internet is a basic human right, and that he or she also has a right to privacy and security that should be protected by laws. UNESCO argues that the right to assemble in cyberspace comes under Article 19 of the Declaration of Human Rights.
At the other end of the spectrum are those countries, like Russia and China, that favour a global treaty but nevertheless believe that access to the internet should be limited if it threatens regime stability, and that information can also be seen as a cyber-threat. For these countries, any state has the right to control content within its sovereign internet space.
Linked to the rights and responsibilities of states is the thorny issue of attribution. There are those countries that say that attribution to a specific attacker is impossible, and that the focus has to be defence from attacks. Others argue that attribution is possible, but requires international cooperation, sharing of information and assistance from local authorities.
Some states believe that cooperation is a threat to their sovereignty; others say they can’t be held responsible for the activities of individuals or private companies. And a number apparently fear openness because they don’t want to see restrictions on their political or military objectives.
Some clear themes emerge from the report, and they are issues that need fairly urgent resolution;
- To what degree should a more proactive stance be developed both in the military and private arenas
- The need for much greater international cooperation
- Introducing a more solid security architecture to the internet
- Establishing cyber-confidence building measures as an easier alternative to any global treaty.
The second part of this report are 21 country stress tests, complemented by findings from the global survey the SDA conducted in the autumn of 2011 among 250 top cyber-security specialists in 35 countries. They included government ministers, staff at international organisations, leading academics, think-tankers and IT specialists, and their views diverged widely on how to improve international cooperation in cyberspace, which over half of them now consider a global common like the sea or space.
Everyone agrees that cyber-security presents a global rather than a national challenge (thanks Sherlock). But how global should our attempts at a solution be? This report will help show where global thinking on cyber-security currently stands, and how to improve it.
The following recommendations are a step in that direction. They are not directed at specific bodies or institutions, but are intended as a checklist for achieving international solutions to global regulatory questions:
- Build trust between industry and government stakeholders by setting up bodies to share information and best practices, like the Common Assurance Maturity Model (CAMM) and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA).
- Increase public awareness of how individuals can protect their own internet data, and promote cyber-security education and training.
- New problems and opportunities created by ubiquitous computing must be examined.
- Prioritise information protection, knowing that no one size fits all. The three key goals that need to be achieved are confidentiality, integration and availability.
- Consider establishing cyber-confidence building measures as an alternative to a global treaty, knowing that many countries view a treaty as unverifiable, unenforceable and impractical.
- Improve communication between the various communities and stakeholders at national and international levels.
- Enhance attribution capabilities by investing in new technologies, and establishing rules and standards.
- Follow the Dutch model of a third party cyber-exchange for improved private-public partnership on internet security.
- Find ways of establishing assurance – or trust – through the use of security mechanisms and processes (for private companies and for governments).
- Encourage integration of cyber into existing processes and structures. Make sure cyber considerations and investment are present at every level.
Read the document here: http://www.securitydefenceagenda.org/Portals/14/Documents/Publications/
SDA_Cyber_report_FINAL.pdf
0 Comments 
Filed under UK Police launch more cyber e-crime hubs
The UK police capability to tackle the growing threat of cyber crime was strengthened today with the announcement of three regional policing e-crime hubs
The new hubs, in Yorkshire and the Humber, the Northwest and in East Midlands, was be launched at the ACPO e-crime conference in Sheffield. Cyber crime has been identified in the National Security Risk Assessment as a ‘tier one’ threat alongside international terrorism, an international military crisis, and a major accident or natural hazard requiring a national response.
To meet the threat, the government has granted £30m over four years to improve national capability to investigate and combat cyber crime. It seems that this £30m is part of the £650m package announced as part of the 2009 UK cyber strategy.
The three new units will work alongside the Metropolitan Police Centre e-crime Unit (PCeU) which was established in October 2008 as part of the National e-Crime Programme.
ACPO lead on e-crime Deputy Assistant Commissioner Janet Williams said: “The Government has acknowledged a need to collaborate and provide a structured response to the cyber security of the UK and these three additional policing units are going to play a critical role in our ability to combat the threat. It is anticipated the hubs will make a significant contribution to the national harm reduction target of £504m. In the first six months of the new funding period alone we have already been able to show a reduction of £140m with our existing capability. While a training period is required before the hubs are fully functional they will undoubtedly provide an enhanced ability to investigate this fast growing area of crime and provide an improved internet investigation capability.”
James Brokenshire Minister for Crime and Security said: “Cyber crime is a threat locally and nationally, and every police force in the country has to deal with its impact on people and businesses in their area.As well as leading the fight in their regions, these units mark a significant step forward in developing a national response to cyber crime, which will be driven by the new National Crime Agency.The government has committed £650million in the fight against e-crime.”
Regional e-crime co-ordinator, East Midlands Deputy Chief Constable Peter Goodman said:“There is no doubt that the proliferation of the internet has brought significant benefits to all across society, but unfortunately that also includes those who have criminal intent. We know that increasingly criminal networks are seeking to exploit cyber space for profit and we have a duty as police leaders to respond to protect individuals and communities.”
Within the first 18 months of activity, the central unit conducted seven operations across the England, Wales and Northern UK which resulted in an overall harm prevention figure of £83m; a 1:21 saving on funding.
PCeU Northwest, PCeU East Midlands and PCeU Yorkshire and the Humber will initially each comprise of three staff members (detective sergeant and two detective constables), and will operate not only by generating their own investigations, but in a supporting capacity to the Met’s PCeU.
Creating a Common Operating Picture in Cyberspace
Successful cyberspace investigations require an ability to piece together disparate technical and contextual data sources to develop a comprehensive picture of an adversary and their methods of attack. This session will highlight six key challenges of cyber security, and how Palantir can be used to build a common operating picture for cyberspace enabled organisations.
Mikko Hypponen on the three types of online attacker
A great introduction about the behaviour of the East German state that required a sample page from each typewriter to ensure that they could trace which was used to produce any critical articles of the state (The lives of others). The same thing is happening with laser printers today allowing government to use technology against citizens.
Mikko Hypponen divides attackers into the following groups
- Criminals – Motivations are easy to understand; they want to make money and have made their fortunes online. In the future the majority of crime will occur online.
- Protesters – Activists, motivated by beliefs .
- Nation states – Totalitarian states hack companies (Diginotar) or individuals (Germany) for surveillance.
While many will state “I have nothing to hide why should I worry?”, the argument is never about personal privacy vs national security, but about Freedom vs Control. Loss of privacy IS loss of freedom. We must remember that any right that is given away will never be returned. The moral right of a government is derived solely from the consent of the people whom the government represents.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
“My criticsim of the West, especially of liberals, is that they take freedom for granted.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali
How about if the government set up video cameras and microphones in every room of your house, would that be ok? No, because you would have lost your freedom to be a private individual – privacy is necessary for healthy psychological function in modern societies. Governments watching what you do on your computer is the same as having CCTV in your home. Now imagine giving governments the power to watch your every move without you even knowing it. How could you fight such a government if it became repressive? You couldn’t because those liberties would have been lost.
Another good comment after the video;
Tyrannical governments are not going to spy on everyone in order to find out who hates them because they already know that the majority of the population hates them and because they cannot incarcerate the majority of the population. All they want to know is who is brave enough to oppose the government. I know this fact because I was a dissident in communist Poland and I learned it from the secret police and from other dissidents. In North Korea, not crying hard enough at the funeral of Kim Jong-il was interpreted as anti-government demonstration, punishable by incarceration. German Nazis had blockleiters (block leaders) who spied on the people living in the same building. Soviet Union had the same kind of spies, called dvorniki (house-men). The purpose of these spies was terrorizing the population. It did not matter who was arrested, as long as a few people were arrested every year.
Even if ordinary people manage to create a guerrilla army, they cannot overthrow tyrannical governments, e.g., the governments of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Hafez al-Assad (Hama massacre), and the North Korean government because the governments have better weapons and their soldiers have better training. All historical examples of guerrilla victories are victories against weak, non-tyrannical governments. The American war of independence (revolution) was won by the French navy. Egyptian military leaders told Hosni Mubarak that if he did not step down voluntarily the army would force him out. Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown by Western air-force aided by militia armed and trained by the West. Taliban and Haqqani Network exist because they receive support from Pakistani ISI. Any tyrannical government can enslave its population because we, the people, do not have modern air force and we cannot defeat the government air-force with rifles and RPGs. Any tyrannical government that possesses nuclear weapons and is willing to defend itself with genocidal attacks is invincible.
Privacy was a problem for companies and governments to solve, and technology has allow people to meet the challenge.
NATO cyber defence and the New Strategic Concept
(c) NATO
Despite the launch of NATO’s New Strategic Concept in Lisbon, there remain many unanswered questions regarding the Alliance’s mission in cyberspace. Experts have attempted to decipher the position of cyber threats within the context of NATO’s grand strategic debate, both nationally and internationally. So where does the task of countering these threats fit among the Alliance’s core commitments? And what challenges do they present to security and defence policies?
Behind this backdrop of uncertainty, a NATO-funded workshop will bring together 40 experts from NATO and partner countries, including Russia, to proffer answers and provide an analytical context for a clearer understanding of what NATO’s cyber security strategy should be.
Taking place from 10 to 11 October 2011 in Cambridge in the United Kingdom, this workshop will attempt to steer the perception of cyber threats from a constant annoyance punctuated by embarrassing security breaches, to the economic and security impacts it can pose to both the public and private sectors. Despite this reality, talk of a ’cyber 9/11’ remains at a theoretical level even though intellectual property as well as corporate and government secrets are constantly compromised by anonymous actors.
Key speakers at this workshop will discuss topics such as:
- Emerging security threats in cyberspace;
- Command and control in cyberspace;
- A history of internet security failures;
- Cyber risks and preparedness in the private sector;
- Securing the next generation internet; and
- Governing cyberspace – law, international cooperation and treaty
It is becoming increasingly apparent that many security analysts recognise the importance of cyber defence and view the security of the ‘e-domain’ as being on par with NATO’s more traditional concerns. Cyber attacks offer anonymity and deniability as well as vastly favourable cost-benefit ratios in comparison to conventional military options. It is increasingly probable that a cyber attack on a NATO country will precede, or even replace a physical assault, moving cyber issues to the forefront of security concerns. This requires new strategic thinking to mitigate this very real threat of tomorrow.
Participants from Microsoft, Facebook (UK), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Cambridge University will contribute to what promises to be a dynamic exchange of views on a facet of the modern security environment.
This workshop is funded through NATO’s Science for Peace and Security Programme.
Cyber attacks could run rings around London Olympics
McAfee announced survey results which show a worrying lack of awareness amongst MPs, business leaders and journalists about the extent of the cyber threat facing the London 2012 Olympic Games.
The report states that a recent survey of MPs, business leaders and journalists (narrow pool of participants) show that only two percent think that a cyber attack poses the greatest threat to the 2012 Olympic games. You might think that a terrorist attack or infrastructure failure would top the list, but a ‘lack of interest from the British public’ tops the poll (carried out between 17th June and 12th July 2011).
The findings suggest that there is a continuing failure to grasp the importance of the cyber threat despite the government categorising the possibility of cyber-attack a tier one threat in the National Security Strategy and warnings from the London Organising Committee of the London Games (LOCOG) that attacks are “inevitable”.
Atos Origin, LOCOG’s IT partner, have said that 14 million malware events were recorded per day during the Beijing Olympics, 400 of which had the potential to impact on the games.McAfee’s own research released in August 2011, has shown that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has already been the subject of cyber-attacks along with the networks of 72 organisations, although this has not been confirmed by the IOC. [see Operation Shady RAT ].
In the first three months of 2011, McAfee identified more than six million examples of malicious software, which far exceeds any records for a similar time period. There has also been a 76% increase on attacks on android phones. At the current rate of growth McAfee expects samples to reach 75 million by the year end.
The survey showed:
- 52% of business leaders, 64% of politicians and 62% of journalists feel it is unlikely that there will be a large scale cyber-attack during London 2012
- 74% of business people, 79% of politicians and 80% of journalists believe that if an attack took place it would not compromise the Games
- 41% of respondents rated transport as the greatest threat to the success of the Games followed by 38% who rated terror attack as the biggest potential threat
- Only 2% considered cyber-attack the largest threat which was less than those who thought lack of interest from the British public posed a greater problem.
However
- 89% of business leaders, 79% of MPs and 83% of journalists felt that the risk of cyber-attack will grow in the future
David Blunkett, former Home Secretary and Chair of the International Cyber Security Protection Alliance (ICSPA) has called for an education campaign targeted at all parts of society. “At a time when cyber attacks on organisations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are hitting the headlines, it is important that our lawmakers and opinion formers understand the importance of the work being done to protect the London Olympic Games and use it as a springboard for a national campaign of online vigilance,”
Raytheon acquires cyber security firm Pikewerks Corporation
Raytheon Company announced that it had acquired cyber security firm Pikewerks Corporation for an undisclosed amount.
This is Raytheon’s second cyber security acquisition this year following the transformational $490 million (£314 million) deal for Applied Signal Technology (“AST”) Inc. in February. The deal for AST was the company’s biggest acquisition since William Swanson took over as CEO. Pikewerks is Raytheon’s ninth cyber buy since 2007, transforming the image of Raytheon from a missile company to a cyber technology player.
“Like Raytheon, Pikewerks is built on the commitment to undertake the hardest problems and apply creativity and innovation to push the limits of technology,” said Lynn Dugle, President of Raytheon’s Intelligence and Information Systems business. “Developers at Pikewerks are experts who have taken technology from concept to deployment, and we are excited to welcome them as members of our innovative Raytheon team.”
According to a press release the addition of Pikewerks to the Raytheon family will increase its “capabilities to defend against sophisticated cyber security threats facing customers in the intelligence community, Department of Defense and commercial organizations.” Pikewerks offers a “range of analysis and investigation capabilities with particular emphasis on insider threat protection, software protection and forensics.”
Another defence and government services firm actively acquiring in the cyber sector is ManTech International Corporation (NASDAQ: MANT), buying Worldwide Information Network Systems (“WINS”) for $90 million in cash last month. WINS will become a part of ManTech’s Mission, Cyber and Technology Solutions group, led by L. William Varner.
“WINS innovative IT capabilities fit well with our existing business,” said Varner. “With WINS we will be able to offer our customers more comprehensive solutions to overcome their complex network challenges. We look forward to working with their talented employees to provide continued excellent service to our customers.”
While the company’s cyber business is blooming, other parts of the business are struggling in the face of budget cuts and cancelled contracts. Two days following the acquisition of WINS, ManTech announced that it had appointed Michael Brogan as Senior Vice President for Strategy of the company’s Systems Engineering and Advanced Technology (SEAT) group. Brogan’s role is to “identify new business opportunities and help align SEAT’s strategy with Department of Defense acquisition-reform measures.”
Reading between the lines, the SEAT business is looking bleak and a new strategy for growth, perhaps in adjacent markets, is required.
“Our government is reassessing priorities, and we have the right person to help us understand and meet the government’s technology needs – in both the civilian and military sectors,” said SEAT President and Chief Operating Officer Terry Ryan. “Mike’s experience, knowledge, and analytical abilities will be valuable assets to ManTech.”
This trend will become more and more apparent as defence firms continue to diversify their offerings and become more cyber security exposed. ‘No money in defence, let’s buy in cyber’ – problem solved, right? Not exactly. With so many firms now competing for a limited number of acquisition targets, multiples will inevitably rise and rise, pricing many out of the market. Even mid-market stalwart Cobham is struggling to keep up with CEO Andy Stevens announcing in March that he would not be pursuing any deals in the sector as prices have become “ludicrous.”
While there will undoubtedly be a number of other cyber security acquisitions to report over the coming years, it’s likely the most interesting ones will come from the likes of Raytheon, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and ManTech who can afford to pay the lofty market prices.
CSIS Significant Cyber Incidents
This list from the CSIS, is a work in progress that they update as new incidents come to light.
Significance is in the eye of the beholder, but the CSIS focus on successful attacks on government agencies, defense and high tech companies, or economic crimes with losses of more than a million dollars.
1. May 2006. The Department of State’s networks were hacked, and unknown foreign intruders downloaded terabytes of information. If Chinese or Russian spies backed a truck up to the State Department, smashed the glass doors, tied up the guards and spend the night carting off file cabinets it would be an act of war, but when it happens in cyberspace we barely notice.
2. August 2006. A senior Air Force Officer stated publicly that, “China has downloaded 10 to 20 terabytes of data from the NIPRNet (the unclassified
military network).”
3. November 2006. Hackers attempted to penetrate U.S. military War College networks, resulting in a two week shutdown at one institution while infected machines are restored.
4. December 2006. NASA was forced to block emails with attachments before shuttle launches out of fear they would be hacked. Business Week reported that the plans for the latest U.S. space launch vehicles were obtained by unknown foreign intruders.
5. 2006. Chinese hackers were thought to be responsible for shutting down the House of Commons computer system.
6. April 2007. The Department of Commerce had to take the Bureau of Industrial Security’s networks offline for several months because its networks were hacked by unknown foreign intruders. This Commerce Bureau reviews confidential information on high tech exports.
7. May 2007. The National Defense University had to take its email systems offline because of hacks by unknown foreign intruders that left spyware on the system.
8. May 2007. Estonian government networks were harassed by a denial of service attack by unknown foreign intruders, most likely at the behest of the Russian government. Some government online services were temporarily disrupted and online banking was halted. These were more like cyber riots than crippling attacks, and the Estonians responded very well; however, they created a wave of fear in cyber dependent countries like the U.S.
9. June 2007. The Secretary of Defense’s unclassified email account was hacked by unknown foreign intruders as part of a larger series of attacks to access and exploit DOD networks.
10. August 2007. The British Security Service, the French Prime Minister’s Office and the Office of German Chancellor Angela Merkel all complained to China about intrusion on their government networks. Merkel even raised the matter with China’s President.
11. September 2007. Israel disrupted Syrian air defense networks (with some collateral Damage to its own domestic networks) during the bombing of an alleged Syrian nuclear facility.
12. September 2007. Francis Delon, Secretary-General of National Defence in France, stated that information systems in France had been infiltrated by groups from China.
13. September 2007. Contractors employed by DHS and DOD had their networks hacked as backdoors into agency systems.
14. September 2007. British authorities reported that hackers, believed to have come from China’s People’s Liberation Army, penetrated the network of the Foreign Office and other key departments.
15. October 2007. China’s Ministry of State Security said that foreign hackers, 42% from Taiwan and 25% from United Sates, had been stealing information from Chinese key areas. In 2006, when China’s China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) Intranet Network was surveyed, spywares were found in the computers of classified departments and corporate leaders.
16. October 2007. More than a thousand staffers at Oak Ridge National Labs received an email with an attachment that, when opened, provides unknown outsiders with access to the Lab’s databases.
17. November 2007. Jonathan Evans, the head of Britain’s Security Service (MI5), warned 300 business firms of the increased online threat from Russian and Chinese state organizations saying, “A number of countries continue to devote considerable time and energy trying to steal our sensitive technology on civilian and military projects, and trying to obtain political and economic intelligence at our expense. They…increasingly deploy sophisticated technical attacks, using the internet to penetrate computer networks.”
18. January 2008. A CIA official said the agency knew of four incidents overseas where hackers were able to disrupt, or threaten to disrupt, the power supply for four foreign cities.
19. March 2008. South Korean Officials claimed that China had attempted to hack into Korean Embassy and Korea military networks.
20. March 2008. U.S. officials reported that American, European, and Japanese companies were experiencing significant losses of intellectual property and business information to criminal and industrial espionage in cyberspace. However, details cannot be provided in an unclassified setting.
21. May 2008. The Times of India reports that an Indian official accused China of hacking into government computers. The official stated that the core of the Chinese assault is the scanning and mapping of India’s official networks to gain access to content in order to plan how to disable or disrupt networks during a conflict.
22. June 2008. The networks of several Congressional offices were hacked by unknown foreign intruders. Some infiltrations involved offices with an interest in human rights in Tibet.
23. Summer 2008. The databases of both Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns were hacked and downloaded by unknown foreign intruders.
24. Summer 2008. Marathon Oil, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips are hacked and lose data detailing the quantity, value, and location of oil discoveries around the world. One company puts the losses in the millions.
25. August 2008. Computer networks in Georgia were hacked by unknown foreign intruders, most likely at the behest of the Russian government. Much press attention was given to annoying graffiti on Georgian government websites. There was little or no disruption of services but the hacks did put political pressure on the Georgian government and were coordinated with Russian military actions.
26. October 2008. Police discovered a highly sophisticated supply chain attack where credit card readers made in China and used in UK supermarkets had a wireless device inserted in them. The device copies a credit card when it is inserted, stores the data, and transfers the data it has collected once a day via WiFi connection to Lahore, Pakistan. Estimated loss is $50 million or more. The device could be instructed to collect only certain kinds of cards (such as gold cards), or to go dormant to evade detection.
27. November 2008. Hackers breached networks at Royal Bank of Scotland’s WorldPay, allowing them to clone 100 ATM cards and withdraw over $9 million dollars from machines in 49 cities.
28. November 2008. Classified networks at DOD and CENTCOM were hacked by unknown foreign intruders. Even worse, it took several days to dislodge the intruders and resecure the networks.
29. December 2008. Retail giant TJX is hacked. The one hacker captured and convicted (Maksym Yastremskiy ) is said to have made $11 million from the hack.
30. December 2008. Even tiny CSIS was hacked in December by unknown foreign intruders. They probably assumed that some CSIS staff would go into the new administration and may have though it might be interesting to read their emails beforehand.
31. 2008. Britain’s MPs were warned about e-mails apparently sent by the European Parliament amid fears that they could be used by Chinese hackers to implant viruses.
32. January 2009. Hackers attacked Israel’s internet infrastructure during the January 2009 military offensive in the Gaza Strip. The attack, which focused on government websites, was executed by at least 5,000,000 computers. Israeli officials believed the attack was carried out by a criminal organization from the former Soviet Union, and paid for by Hamas or Hezbollah.
33. January 2009. Indian Home Ministry officials warned that Pakistani hackers had placed malware on popular music download sites used by Indians in preparation for cyber attacks.
34. February 2009. FAA computer systems were hacked. Increased use by FAA of IP-bases’ networks also increases the risk of the intentional disruption of commercial air traffic.
35. February 2009. 600 computers at India’s Ministry of External Affairs were hacked.
36. February 2009. French naval aircraft planes were grounded after military databases were infected with the “confickr” virus. Naval officials suspected someone at the Navy had used an infected USB key.
37. March 2009. The German government warned that hackers were offering a free version of the new Microsoft operating system that installs Trojans.
38. March 2009: Canadian researchers found a computer espionage system that they believe China implanted on the government networks of 103 countries.
39. March 2009: Reports in the press say that the plans for Marine Corps 1, the new presidential helicopter, were found on a file-sharing network in Iran.
40. April 2009. Wall Street Journal articles laid out the increasing vulnerability of the U.S. power grid to cyber attack also highlighted was the intrusions into F-35 databases by unknown foreign intruders.
41. April 2009. Chinese hackers reportedly infiltrated South Korea’s Finance Ministry via a virus attached to e-mails claiming to be from trusted individuals.
42. May 2009. In May 2009, Merrick Bank, a leading issuer of credit cards, claimed it lost $16 million after hackers compromised as many as 40 million credit card accounts.
43. May 2009. The Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) was hacked by unknown intruders. The hackers gained access to the data by getting into the HSIN account of a federal employee or contractor. The bulk of the data obtained was federal, but some state information was also accessed
44. June 2009. The John Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory, which does classified research for the Department of Defense and NASA, took its unclassified networks offline after they were penetrated.
45. June 2009. German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble noted, when presenting the Interior Ministry’s 2008 security report, that China and Russia were increasing espionage efforts and Internet attacks on German companies.
46. July 2009. Cyberattacks against websites in the United States and South Korea, including a number of government websites, were launched by unknown hackers. South Korea accused North Korea of being behind the attacks The denial of service attacks did not severely disrupt services but lasted for a number of days and generated a great deal of media attention.
47. August 2009. Albert Gonzalez was indicted on charges that between 2006 and 2008, he and unidentified Russian or Ukrainian colleagues allegedly stole more than 130 million credit and debit cards by hacking into the computer systems of five major companies. This was the largest hacking and identity theft crime in U.S. history.
48. November 2009. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice-chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ascribed the hacking and release of thousands of emails, from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit to Russia as part of a plot to undermine the Copenhagen climate talks.
49. December 2009. The Wall Street Journal reported that a major U.S. bank had been is hacked, losing tens of millions of dollars.
50. December 2009. Downlinks from U.S military UAV’s are hacked by Iraqi insurgents using laptops and $24.99 file sharing software., allowing them to see what the UAV has viewed.
51. January 2010. The UK’s MI5 Security Service warns that undercover intelligence officers from the People’s Liberation Army and the Ministry of Public Security have approached UK businessmen at trade fairs and exhibitions with the offer of “gifts” – cameras and memory sticks – which contain malware that provides the Chinese with remote access to users’ computers.
52. January 2010. Google announced that a sophisticated attack had penetrated its networks, along with the networks of more than 30 other US companies. The goal of the penetrations, which Google ascribed to China, were to collect technology, gain access to activist Gmail accounts and to Google’s Gaea password management system.
53. January 2010. M. K. Narayanan, India’s National Security Adviser, said his office and other government departments were attacked by China on December 15. The Prime Minister’s office later denied that their computers had been hacked. Narayanan said this was not the first attempt to penetrate Indian government computers.
54. January 2010. A group named the “Iranian Cyber Army” disrupted service of the popular Chinese search engine Baidu. Users were redirected to a page showing an Iranian political message. Previously, the “Iranian Cyber Army” had hacked into Twitter in December and with a similar message.
55. January 2010. Intel discloses that it has experienced a cyber attack at about the same time that Google, Adobe and other were attacked. The hackers exploited the vulnerabilities in Internet
Explorer software that had been used in the other attacks as well. Intel said that there was no intellectual property or financial loss.
56. March 2010. NATO and the EU warn that the number of cyber attacks against their networks have increased significantly over the past 12 months, with Russia and China among the most active adversaries.
57. March 2010. Google announced that it had found malware targeted at Vietnamese computer users. Google said that the malware was not especially sophisticated and was used to spy on “potentially tens of thousands of users who downloaded Vietnamese keyboard language software” the malware also launched distributed denial of service attacks against blogs containing political dissent, specifically, opposition to bauxite mining efforts in Vietnam.
58. March 2010. Australian authorities say there were more than 200 attempts to hack into the networks of the legal defense team for Rio Tinto executives being tried in China, to gain inside information on the trial defense strategy.
59. April 2010. Chinese hackers reportedly break into classified files at the Indian Defence Ministry and Indian embassies around the world, gaining access to Indian missile and armament systems.
60. April 2010. A Chinese telecommunications firm accidently transmitted erroneous routing information for roughly 37,000 networks, causing internet traffic to be misrouted through China. The incident lasted 20 minutes and exposed traffic from more than 8,000 U.S. networks, 8,500 Chinese networks, 1,100 Australian networks and 230 French networks.
61. May 2010. A leaked memo form the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) says that “Compromises of computer and combinations networks of the Government of Canada, Canadian universities, private companies and individual customer networks have increased substantially…. In addition to being virtually unattributable, these remotely operated attacks offer a productive, secure and low-risk means to conduct espionage.”
62. July 2010. A Russian intelligence agent (allegedly named Alexey Karetnikov), is arrested and deported after working for nine months as a software tester at Microsoft.
63. October 2010. Stuxnet, a complex piece of malware designed to interfere with Siemens Industrial Control Systems, is discovered in Iran, Indonesia, and elsewhere, leading to speculation that it was a government cyber weapon aimed at the Iranian nuclear program.
64. October 2010. The Wall Street Journal Reports that hackers using “Zeus” malware, available in cybercrime black markets for about $1200, were able to steal over $12 million from five banks in the US and UK. Zeus uses links in emails to steal account information, which the hackers then use to transfer money into bank accounts they control. 100 “mules”, or low end criminals, were arrested for opening bank accounts under false names into which the hackers transferred stolen money.
65. January 2011. Hackers penetrate the European Union’s carbon trading market, which allows organizations to buy and sell their carbon emissions quotas, and steal more than $7 million in credits, forcing the market to shut down temporarily.
Dont open that spam
Often you can just tell from the subject title whether its spam;
- It’s not your bank. Unsubscribe from any email or notifications your bank might send to you. Never click on any link within an email to ‘take you to your login’, assume this to be a phising exercise to get your details – In the words of the X Files: ‘Trust No One’
. Make sure you can delete all banking/financial emails without issue and type your bank url into the address bar (or save shortcut link in bookmarks) when you want to do some online banking.
- Don’t open paypal notifications. If you get an email from paypal letting you now about that money transfer that you know nothing about, don’t open it, just delete it and visit the site to check if you’re that worried. When I have actually transfered money and expect an email notification – I still delete it when it comes.
- You didn’t sign up to this . Often the trick is to get you to click ‘unsubscribe’ to first check that your email is valid and second to get you to visit an infected website. Just delete the email, mark as spam so your filter will catch it next time and don’t provide any acknowledgement to the sender.
- You don’t know them. Why open any email from someone you don’t know? Why waste your time? Ok, in a business environment you’re going to get such emails, but you can still apply some common sense when the subject is ‘i am waiting for your respond‘.
- Delivery failure of that package I didn’t order? .Didn’t order a package? Then the email is probably betting on your curiosity, you’ll open it and get infected. Don’t we learn anything from the history of cats?
So when I actually take the time to take a look at some of the spam that has come in, I find the following messages popping up;
Viruses found in a linked image.
Viruses found in the attached files.
SN_122010.zip: Trojan horse PSW.Generic8.ALOK.
I’m not paraniod, all my email is infected!