Daily Archives: November 7, 2019

Eliminating the Social Media Cyber Security Blind Spot

Guest article by Anthony Perridge, VP International, ThreatQuotient
More than three billion people around the world use social media each month, with 90% of those users accessing their chosen platforms via mobile devices. While, historically, financial services (FinServ) institutions discouraged the use of social media, it has become a channel that can no longer be ignored.

FinServ institutions are widely recognised as leaders in cybersecurity, employing layers of defence and highly skilled security experts to protect their organisations. But as the attack surface expands with the growing use of social media and external digital platforms, many FinServ security teams are blind to a new wave of digital threats outside the firewall.

Social media is a morass of information flooding the Internet with billions of posts per day that comprise text, images, hashtags and different types of syntax. It is as broad as it is deep and requires an equally broad and deep combination of defences to identify and mitigate the risk it presents.

Understanding prevalent social media threats
Analysis of prevalent social media risks shows the breadth and depth of these types of attacks. A deeper understanding of how bad actors are using social media and digital platforms for malicious purposes is extremely valuable as FinServ institutions strive to strengthen their defence-in-depth architectures and mitigate risk to their institutions, brands, employees and customers.

To gain visibility, reduce risk and automate protection, leaders in the financial industry are expanding their threat models to include these threat vectors. They are embracing a data-driven approach that uses automation and machine learning to keep pace with these persistent and continuously evolving threats, automatically finding fraudulent accounts, spear-phishing attacks, customer scams, exposed personally identifiable information (PII), account takeovers and more.

They are aggregating this data into a central repository so that their threat intelligence teams can trace attacks back to malicious profiles, posts, comments or pages, as well as pivot between these different social media objects for context. Network security teams can block their users from accessing malicious social objects to help prevent attacks, and incident response teams can compare their organisation’s telemetry of incidents with known indicators of compromise to mitigate damage.

Employee education is also a critical component of standard defences. Raising awareness of these threats through regular training and instituting policies to improve social media security hygiene with respect to company and personal accounts goes a long way to preventing these attacks in the first place.

A Checklist for Financial Institutions This checklist that encompasses people, process and technology will go a long way toward helping FinServ security teams better protect their institutions, brands, employees and customers.
  1. IDENTIFY the institution’s social media and digital footprint, including accounts for the company, brands, locations, executives and key individuals.
  2. OBTAIN “Verified Accounts” for company and brand accounts on social media. This provides assurance to customers that they are interacting with legitimate accounts and prevents impersonators from usurping a “Verified Account.”
  3. ENABLE two-factor authentication for social media accounts to deter hijacking and include corporate and brand social media accounts in IT password policy requirements.
  4. MONITOR for spoofed and impersonator accounts and, when malicious, arrange for takedown
  5. IDENTIFY scams, fraud, money-flipping and more by monitoring for corporate and brand social media pages.
  6. MONITOR for signs of corporate and executive social media account hijacking. Early warning indicators are important in protecting the organisation’s brand.
  7. DEPLOY employee training and policies on social media security hygiene.
  8. INCORPORATE a social media and digital threat feed into a threat intelligence platform as part of an overall defence-in-depth approach. This allows teams to ingest, correlate and take action faster on attacks made against their institution via social media.
Conclusion
FinServ institutions and their customers use many different social networks to communicate and conduct business but are often blind to the risk bad actors present as they increasingly targeting these public, uncontrolled channels to commit financial fraud, damage brands and even pose physical threats.

FinServ security teams need visibility into digital threats outside the firewall and actionable information to reduce risk and automate protection. Those that are most successful have a defence-in-depth architecture that includes intelligence on social and digital threats, context to understand what threats pose the greatest risk, and the ability to build on existing processes and workflows to block more threats and accelerate remediation.

IDG Contributor Network: 5 ways cybersecurity awareness trainings can strengthen your organization

According to an InfoScales report, 95% of successful cyberattacks have human error as the leading cause – most notably company employees falling for phishing scams. This is an important observation as cybersecurity efforts often intuitively focus largely on strengthening the technical controls in an organization to prevent data leakage, willful exfiltration and systems intrusion, for example.

The fact that human error, rather social engineering, is a major component leveraged by attackers in carrying out a successful breach signifies that employees’ careful attitude towards handling data and computer systems is prudent to ensuring the organization’s success with regards to security.

To read this article in full, please click here

GWP-ASan: Sampling heap memory error detection in-the-wild

Memory safety errors, like use-after-frees and out-of-bounds reads/writes, are a leading source of vulnerabilities in C/C++ applications. Despite investments in preventing and detecting these errors in Chrome, over 60% of high severity vulnerabilities in Chrome are memory safety errors. Some memory safety errors don’t lead to security vulnerabilities but simply cause crashes and instability.

Chrome uses state-of-the-art techniques to prevent these errors, including:

  • Coverage-guided fuzzing with AddressSanitizer (ASan)
  • Unit and integration testing with ASan
  • Defensive programming, like custom libraries to perform safe math or provide bounds checked containers
  • Mandatory code review

Chrome also makes use of sandboxing and exploit mitigations to complicate exploitation of memory errors that go undetected by the methods above.

AddressSanitizer is a compiler instrumentation that finds memory errors occurring on the heap, stack, or in globals. ASan is highly effective and one of the lowest overhead instrumentations available that detects the errors that it does; however, it still incurs an average 2-3x performance and memory overhead. This makes it suitable for use with unit tests or fuzzing, but not deployment to end users. Chrome used to deploy SyzyASAN instrumented binaries to detect memory errors. SyzyASAN had a similar overhead so it was only deployed to a small subset of users on the canary channel. It was discontinued after the Windows toolchain switched to LLVM.

GWP-ASan, also known by its recursive backronym, GWP-ASan Will Provide Allocation Sanity, is a sampling allocation tool designed to detect heap memory errors occurring in production with negligible overhead. Because of its negligible overhead we can deploy GWP-ASan to the entire Chrome user base to find memory errors happening in the real world that are not caught by fuzzing or testing with ASan. Unlike ASan, GWP-ASan can not find memory errors on the stack or in globals.

GWP-ASan is currently enabled for all Windows and macOS users for allocations made using malloc() and PartitionAlloc. It is only enabled for a small fraction of allocations and processes to reduce performance and memory overhead to a negligible amount. At the time of writing it has found over sixty bugs (many are still restricted view). About 90% of the issues GWP-ASan has found are use-after-frees. The remaining are out-of-bounds reads and writes.

To learn more, check out our full write up on GWP-ASan here.

IDG Contributor Network: Why corporate boards put their digital transformation at risk

Security breaches always seem to be in the news, but only a handful of organizations are protecting themselves against these threats by actively reducing their cyber-risk exposure. Research by the Ponemon Institute revealed that 63 percent of CISOs don’t regularly report to their organization’s board of directors, and 40 percent don’t report to the boardroom at all. Most enterprises still take a reactive approach to cyber-security—that is, they deal with incidents only as they arise, rather than planning in advance—which makes them a lot more vulnerable to cybercrime and puts their digital transformation strategy at risk.

To read this article in full, please click here