News

SecurityScorecard claims almost all of the world’s biggest public companies are connected to a supply chain breach

Singapore’s Ministry of Education ordered the removal of Mobile Guardian from students’ Chromebooks and iPads after a cybersecurity breach

The Grand Palais is among French museums hit by ransomware attacks as the Paris 2024 Summer Olympic Games are underway

Interpol claims intervention saved one Singapore firm $42m stolen by scammers

Sophos X-Ops examines the increasingly aggressive tactics ransomware gangs use to coerce their targets

When an airplane crashes, impartial investigatory bodies leap into action, empowered by law to unearth what happened and why. But there is no such empowered and impartial body to investigate CrowdStrike’s faulty update that recently unfolded, ensnarling banks, airlines, and emergency services to the tune of billions of dollars. We need one. To be sure, there is the White House’s Cyber Safety Review Board. On March 20, the CSRB released a report into last summer’s intrusion by a Chinese hacking group into Microsoft’s cloud environment, where it compromised the U.S. Department of Commerce, State Department, congressional offices, and several associated companies. But the board’s report—well-researched and containing some good and actionable recommendations—shows how it suffers from its lack of subpoena power and its political unwillingness to generalize from specific incidents to the broader industry.

Some background: The CSRB was established in 2021, by executive order, to provide an independent analysis and assessment of significant cyberattacks against the United States. The goal was to pierce the corporate confidentiality that often surrounds such attacks and to provide the entire security community with lessons and recommendations. The more we all know about what happened, the better we can all do next time. It’s the same thinking that led to the formation of the National Transportation Safety Board, but for cyberattacks and not plane crashes.

But the board immediately failed to live up to its mission. It was founded in response to the Russian cyberattack on the U.S. known as SolarWinds. Although it was specifically tasked with investigating that incident, it did not—for reasons that remain unclear.

So far, the board has published three reports. They offered only simplistic recommendations. In the first investigation, on Log4J, the CSRB exhorted companies to patch their systems faster and more often. In the second, on Lapsus$, the CSRB told organizations not to use SMS-based two-factor authentication (it’s vulnerable to SIM-swapping attacks). These two recommendations are basic cybersecurity hygiene, and not something we need an investigation to tell us.

The most recent report—on China’s penetration of Microsoft—is much better. This time, the CSRB gave us an extensive analysis of Microsoft’s security failures and placed blame for the attack’s success squarely on their shoulders. Its recommendations were also more specific and extensive, addressing Microsoft’s board and leaders specifically and the industry more generally. The report describes how Microsoft stopped rotating cryptographic keys in early 2021, reducing the security of the systems affected in the hack. The report suggests that if the company had set up an automated or manual key rotation system, or a way to alert teams about the age of their keys, it could have prevented the attack on its systems. The report also looked at how Microsoft’s competitors—think Google, Oracle, and Amazon Web Services—handle this issue, offering insights on how similar companies avoid mistakes.

Yet there are still problems, with the report itself and with the environment in which it was produced.

First, the public report cites a large number of anonymous sources. While the report lays blame for the breach on Microsoft’s lax security culture, it is actually quite deferential to Microsoft; it makes special mention of the company’s cooperation. If the board needed to make trades to get information that would only be provided if people were given anonymity, this should be laid out more explicitly for the sake of transparency. More importantly, the board seems to have conflict-of-interest issues arising from the fact that the investigators are corporate executives and heads of government agencies who have full-time jobs.

Second: Unlike the NTSB, the CSRB lacks subpoena power. This is, at least in part, out of fear that the conflicted tech executives and government employees would use the power in an anticompetitive fashion. As a result, the board must rely on wheedling and cooperation for its fact-finding. While the DHS press release said, “Microsoft fully cooperated with the Board’s review,” the next company may not be nearly as cooperative, and we do not know what was not shared with the CSRB.

One of us, Tarah, recently testified on this topic before the U.S. Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and the senators asking questions seemed genuinely interested in how to fix the CSRB’s extreme slowness and lack of transparency in the two reports they’d issued so far.

It’s a hard task. The CSRB’s charter comes from Executive Order 14208, which is why—unlike the NTSB—it doesn’t have subpoena power. Congress needs to codify the CSRB in law and give it the subpoena power it so desperately needs.

Additionally, the CSRB’s reports don’t provide useful guidance going forward. For example, is the Microsoft report provides no mapping of the company’s security problems to any government standards that could have prevented them. In this case, the problem is that there are no standards overseen by NIST—the organization in charge of cybersecurity standards—for key rotation. It would have been better for the report to have said that explicitly. The cybersecurity industry needs NIST standards to give us a compliance floor below which any organization is explicitly failing to provide due care. The report condemns Microsoft for not rotating an internal encryption key for seven years, when its standard internally was four years. However, for the last several years, automated key rotation more on the order of once a month or even more frequently has become the expected industry guideline.

A guideline, however, is not a standard or regulation. It’s just a strongly worded suggestion. In this specific case, the report doesn’t offer guidance on how often keys should be rotated. In essence, the CSRB report said that Microsoft should feel very bad about the fact that they did not rotate their keys more often—but did not explain the logic, give an actual baseline of how often keys should be rotated, or provide any statistical or survey data to support why that timeline is appropriate. Automated certificate rotation such as that provided by public free service Let’s Encrypt has revolutionized encrypted-by-default communications, and expectations in the cybersecurity industry have risen to match. Unfortunately, the report only discusses Microsoft proprietary keys by brand name, instead of having a larger discussion of why public key infrastructure exists or what the best practices should be.

More generally, because the CSRB reports so far have failed to generalize their findings with transparent and thorough research that provides real standards and expectations for the cybersecurity industry, we—policymakers, industry leaders, the U.S. public—find ourselves filling in the gaps. Individual experts are having to provide anecdotal and individualized interpretations of what their investigations might imply for companies simply trying to learn what their actual due care responsibilities are.

It’s as if no one is sure whether boiling your drinking water or nailing a horseshoe up over the door is statistically more likely to decrease the incidence of cholera. Sure, a lot of us think that boiling your water is probably best, but no one is saying that with real science. No one is saying how long you have to boil your water for, or if any water sources more likely to carry illness. And until there are real numbers and general standards, our educated opinions are on an equal footing with horseshoes and hope.

It should not be the job of cybersecurity experts, even us, to generate lessons from CSRB reports based on our own opinions. This is why we continue to ask the CSRB to provide generalizable standards which either are based on or call for NIST standardization. We want proscriptive and descriptive reports of incidents: see, for example, the UK GAO report for the WannaCry ransomware, which remains a gold standard of government cybersecurity incident investigation reports.

We need and deserve more than one-off anecdotes about how one company didn’t do security well and should do it better in future.  Let’s start treating cybersecurity like the equivalent of public safety and get some real lessons learned.

This essay was written with Tarah Wheeler, and was published on Defense One.

We all love free stuff. (Costco samples, anyone?) However, when it comes to your family’s security, do free online protection tools offer the coverage you truly need?

Not always. In fact, they might invade the privacy you’re trying to protect.

Here’s why.

Free tools don’t offer the level of advanced protection that life on today’s internet needs. For starters, you’ll want malware and antivirus protection that’s as sophisticated as the threats they shut down. Ours includes AI technology and has for years now, which helps it shut down even the latest strains of malware as they hit the internet for the first time. We’re seeing plenty of that, as hackers have also turned to AI tools to code their malicious software.

Malware and antivirus protection protects your devices. Yet a comprehensive approach protects something else. You and your family.

What makes comprehensive online protection such a strong option

Comprehensive online protection looks after your family’s privacy and identity. That keeps you safe from prying eyes and things like fraud and identity theft. Today’s comprehensive protection offers more features than ever, and far more than you’ll find in a free, and so incomplete, offering.

Consider this short list of what comprehensive online protection like ours offers you and your family:

Scam Protection

Is that email, text, or message packing a scam link? Our scam protection lets you know before you click that link. It uses AI to sniff out bad links. And if you click or tap on one, no worries. It blocks links to malicious sites.

Web Protection

Like scam protection, our web protection sniffs out sketchy links while you browse. So say you stumble across a great-looking offer in a bed of search results. If it’s a link to a scam site, you’ll spot it. Also like scam protection, it blocks the site if you accidentally hit the link.

Transaction Monitoring

This helps you nip fraud in the bud. Based on the settings you provide, transaction monitoring keeps an eye out for unusual activity on your credit and debit cards. That same monitoring can extend to retirement, investment, and loan accounts as well. It can further notify you if someone tries to change the contact info on your bank accounts or take out a short-term loan in your name.

Credit Monitoring

This is an important thing to do in today’s password- and digital-driven world. Credit monitoring uncovers any inconsistencies or outright instances of fraud in your credit reports. Then it helps put you on the path to setting them straight. It further keeps an eye on your reports overall by providing you with notifications if anything changes in your history or score.

Social Privacy Manager

Our social privacy manager puts you in control of who sees what on social media. With it, you can secure your profiles the way you want. It helps you adjust more than 100 privacy settings across your social media accounts in just a few clicks. It offers recommendations as you go and makes sure your personal info is only visible to the people you want. You can even limit some of the ways that social media sites are allowed to use your data for greater peace of mind.

Personal Data Cleanup

This provides you with another powerful tool for protecting your privacy. Personal Data Cleanup removes your personal info from some of the sketchiest data broker sites out there. And they’ll sell those lines and lines of info about you to anyone. Hackers and spammers included. Personal Data Cleanup scans data broker sites and shows you which ones are selling your personal info. From there, it provides guidance for removing your data from those sites. Further, when part of our McAfee+ Advanced and Ultimate, it sends requests to remove your data automatically.

Password Manager

Scammers love weak or reused passwords. Even more so when they’re weak and reused. It offers them an easy avenue to force their way into people’s accounts. Our password manager creates and securely stores strong, unique passwords for you. That saves you the hassle of creating strong, unique passwords for your dozens and dozens of accounts. And helps protect you from fraud.

Identity Theft Coverage & Restoration

This provides you with extra assurance while you shop. Say the unfortunate happens to you and find yourself a victim of identity theft. Our coverage and restoration plan provides up to $2 million in lawyer fees and reimbursement for lawyer fees and stolen funds. Further, a licensed expert can help you repair your identity and credit. In all, this saves you money and your time if theft happens to you.

Why “free” online protection often comes at a cost

Say your online protection leaves gaps in your family’s safety, or that it uses less-effective methods and technologies. That exposes you to threats — threats can cost you time and money alike if one of those threats gets through.

One example, consider the online crimes reported to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. In 2023, they fielded 5.4 million fraud reports. Of them, 2.6 million reported a loss for a total of $10 billion. The median loss was $500 across all reports. Of course, that’s only the median dollar amount. That number can climb much higher in individual cases.

Source: U.S. Federal Trade Commission

Without question, protection is prevention, which can spare you some significant financial losses. Not to mention the time and stress of restoring your credit and identity — and getting your money back.

Does free online protection software gather and share my data?

A “free” solution has to make its money somehow.

Free security solutions sometimes carry in-app advertising. More importantly, they might try to gather your user data to target ads or share it with others to make a profit. Also by advertising for premium products, the vendor indirectly admits that a free solution doesn’t provide enough security.

Further, these tools also offer little to no customer support, leaving users to handle any technical difficulties on their own. What’s more, most free security solutions are meant for use on only one device, whereas the average person owns several connected devices. And that’s certainly the case for many families.

Lastly, free solutions often limit a person’s online activity too. Many impose limits on which browser or email program the user can leverage, which can be inconvenient as many already have a preferred browser or email platform.

Why comprehensive online protection like McAfee’s matters

Free security products might provide the basics, but a comprehensive solution can protect you from a host of other risks — ones that could get in the way of enjoying your time online.

With comprehensive online protection in place, your family’s devices get protection from the latest threats in the ever-evolving security landscape. It keeps your devices safe. And it keeps you safe. With that, we hope you’ll give us a close look when you decide to upgrade to comprehensive protection.

The post Why Should I Pay for Online Protection? appeared first on McAfee Blog.

New report warns of escalating hardware supply chain attacks, with 19% of organizations impacted and nearly all IT leaders expecting nation-state involvement

SonicWall discovered the Apache OFBiz flaw, identifying it as a critical issue enabling unauthenticated remote code execution

50% of professionals also cited a lack of expertise as a barrier to effective cyber-risk management