/c/cybersecurity - Cybersecurity News & Discussion

0 readers
0 users here now

A community for technical news and discussion of cybersecurity and closely related topics.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
1
 
 

I only wonder because, while I know no one could advise per se that people deliberately make bad security decisions, I don't feel as a layman that the nature of the risk is adequately explained.

Specifically, if you use a really old OS or an old now unsupported phone. The explanations for why this is dangerous tend to focus on the mechanism by which it creates a security flaw (lack of patches, known hardware security flaws that can never be patched).

If we use an analogy of physical security whereby the goal is to prevent physical intrusion by thieves or various malicious actors, there's a gradient of risk that's going to depend a bit on things like who and where you are. If you live in a remote cabin in the woods and left your door open, that's bad, but probably less bad than in a high crime area in a dense city. Similarly, if you're a person of note or your house conspicuously demonstrates wealth, security would be more important than if it you're not and it doesn't.

I would think, where human beings are making conscious choices about targets for cybercrime some parralells would exist. If then, you turn on an old device that's long obsolete for the first time in years and connect to the internet with it, while I know you are theoretically at great risk because your doors and windows are essentially wide open, how risky is that exactly? If you just connect, at home on your wifi and don't do anything? Is someone inevitably going to immediately find and connect to this device and exploit it's vulnerabilities? Or does there have to be a degree of bad luck involved?

I've brought up the idea of malicious actors who are human beings making conscious decisions, (hackers), but I was once told the concern is more to do with automated means of finding such devices when they're exposed to the internet. This makes more sense since a theoretical hacker doesn't have to sit around all day just hoping someone in the world will use an outdated device and that they'll somehow see this activity and be able to exploit the situation, but I guess, it seems hard for me to imagine that such bots or automated means of scanning, even if running all day will somehow become aware the minute anyone, anywhere with an insecure device connects to the internet. Surely there has to be some degree coincidental happenstance where a bot is directed to scan for connections to a particular server, like a fake website posing as a bank or something? It just doesn't seem it could be practical otherwise.

If I'm at all accurate in my assumptions, it sounds then like there's a degree to which a random person, not well known enough to be a specific target, not running a website or online presence connecting an insecure device to the internet, while engaging in some risk for sure, isn't immediately going to suffer consequences without some sort of inciting incident. Like falling for a phishing scam, or a person specifically aware of them with mal intent trying to target them in particular. Is that right?

2
1
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by zhenta7@lemmy.ml to c/cybersecurity@lemmy.ml
 
 

I know this may be a very general question, but there are so many resources I don't know where to start.

I'm afraid with the free TryHackMe plan I'm limiting myself a lot.

I know portswigger trining, is it better than TryHackMe?

Am I better off starting directly with CTFs? If yes, which is the best to use? (overthewire, hackthebox ...)

Is roadmap.sh reliable?

How important are the certificates? I am a tech illiterate but never cared about certificates.

Or as a last resort, is it better to start directly with hackthebox?

3
 
 

Researchers analyzed 190 million hacking events on a honeynet and categorized the types of hackers into Dungeons and Dragons classses.

Rangers evaluate the system and set conditions for a follow-on attack.

Thieves install cryptominers and other profiteering software.

Barbarians attempt to brute force their way into adjacent systems.

Wizards connect the newly compromised system to a previous to establish 'portals' to tunnel through to obscure their identity.

Bards have no apparent hacking skill and likely purchase or otherwise acquired access. They perform basic computer tasks.

4
 
 

OK, first of all, I'm no expert, I have some training in networking and very little in cyber security. I live in a small community and there's is an ISP providing service to the whole community. Today I got an old ip camera and tried to hook it up, I couldn't figure out it's ip address and scanned my network (let's say 10.0.0.0/24) for ip addresses and it still wouldn't show up, so I scanned what I know was it's last subnet, let's say 10.0.10.0/24 and found out there as a host at every address, one was even an HP printer from a family the other side of the community which I was able to gain access simply by going to it's address. When I go to my router's web ui I can see that it's gateway is 10.0.8.1 and a 255.255.252.0 subnet. So my question is, is this all normal? Or should I contact someone about it?

5
 
 

geteilt von: https://feddit.de/post/1475295

Bundle Description:

Become a cybersecurity champion

Want to train up to take on today’s biggest cybersecurity challenges? Go from zero to hero with this comprehensive bundle of courses from Packt. Focus on the fundamentals, and build up advanced skills through hands-on training. Learn how to write secure code, test your systems’ defenses, how to be an ethical hacker, and more—and help support World Wildlife Fund with your purchase!

Pay at least €1 for 4 items,
Pay more than the average for 9 items,
Pay at least €22.75 for 22 items

Does anyone has experience with Packt's courses? Anything good in there?

6
 
 

Phishing mongers have released a torrent of image-based junk emails that embed QR codes into their bodies to successfully bypass security protections and provide a level of customization to more easily fool recipients, researchers said.

In many cases, the emails come from a compromised email address inside the organization the recipient works in, a tactic that provides a false sense of authenticity, researchers from security firm Inky said. The emails Inky detected instruct the employee to resolve security issues such as a missing two-factor authentication enrollment or to change a password and warn of repercussions that may occur if the recipient fails to follow through. Those who take the bait and click on the QR code are led to a site masquerading as a legitimate one used by the company but it captures passwords and sends them to the attackers.

Inky described the campaign's approach as “spray and pray” because the threat actors behind it send the emails to as many people as possible to generate results.

There are a few things that make this campaign stand out. First, the emails contain no text. Instead, they have only an attached image file. This allows the emails to escape notice by security protections that analyze the text-based words sent in an email. Some email programs and services, by default, automatically display attached images directly in the body, with some providing no way to suppress them. Recipients then often don’t notice that the image-based email contains no text.

Another distinguishing feature: the images embed a QR code that leads to the credential-harvesting site. This can reduce the time it takes to visit the site and lower the chance the employee will realize something is amiss. The QR codes also cause the loaded website to prefill the recipient's unique email address in the username field. This adds another false sense of assurance that the email and site are legitimate.

In a writeup published Friday, the Inky researchers wrote:

It’s important to note that these three QR Code phishing emails weren’t sent to just a handful of INKY customers. They were part of a “spray and pray” approach. Phishers send their emails to as many people as possible (spray) and then hope (pray) that a strong majority of recipients will fall for the ruse. In this case, multiple industries were attacked. Of the 545 emails noted thus far, intended victims were in the US and Australia. They included nonprofits, multiple wealth management firms, management consultants, a land surveyor, flooring company, and more.

It has long been possible—not to mention a good practice—for privacy-minded people to configure email settings to block the loading of images stored remotely. Scammers and snoops use external images to determine if a message they sent has been opened since the recipient’s device makes a connection to a server hosting the image. Gmail and Thunderbird don't display attached images in the body, but Inky said other clients or services do. People using such clients or services should turn off this feature if possible.

Unfortunately, it's more problematic to block images that are embedded into an email. I couldn't find a setting in Gmail to suppress the loading of embedded images. Thunderbird prevents embedded images from being displayed, but it requires reading the entire message plaintext mode. That, in turn, breaks helpful formatting.

All of this leaves users with the same countermeasures that have been failing them for decades now. They include:

It’s easy for people to dismiss phishing attacks as unsophisticated and perpetuate the myth that only inattentive people fall for them. In fact, studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that phishing is among the most effective and cost-effective means for carrying out network intrusions. With 3.4 billion spam emails sent every day, according to AGG IT Services, and one in four people reporting they have clicked on a phishing email at work, according to Tessian, people underestimate the costs of phishing at their own peril.

7
 
 

Original URL: https://www.barmer.de/presse/presseinformationen/pressearchiv/hackerangriff-auf-externen-barmer-dienstleister-1231230


Hackerangriff auf externen BARMER-Dienstleister – Mögliches Schadensausmaß wird geprüft

Berlin, 17. Juni 2023 – Ein Dienstleister der BARMER ist Ziel eines Hackerangriffs geworden. Dieser Dienstleister unterstützt die Kasse bei der Umsetzung ihres Bonusprogramms. Aktuell laufen Prüfungen, ob bei diesem Angriff, der am 31. Mai 2023 stattfand, auch Zugriff auf BARMER-Daten erfolgt ist. Die entsprechende Sicherheitslücke wurde vom Dienstleister geschlossen. Der Angriff erfolgte ausschließlich auf den Dienstleister der Kasse. Eine Verbindung zur BARMER-IT-Umgebung bestand zu keinem Zeitpunkt. Vorsorglich wurden relevante Behörden über diesen Vorfall in Kenntnis gesetzt.

Für Rückfragen wenden Sie sich an Unternehmenssprecher Athanasios Drougias unter: 0170 7614752 bzw. athanasios.drougias@barmer.de

Presseabteilung der BARMER Athanasios Drougias (Leitung), Telefon 0800 33 30 04 99-1421 bzw. 0170 7614752 E-Mail: athanasios.drougias@barmer.de

8
9
10
 
 

I feel like I'm missing a step. You take down your website, but leave the DNS entry and the attacker does what? Builds a site that has the IP address your CNAME is pointing to? Can anyone make a website in azure and pick the IP address they want? Thanks

11
12
 
 

After being scammed into thinking her daughter was kidnapped, an Arizona woman testified in the US Senate about the dangers side of artificial intelligence technology when in the hands of criminals.

Jennifer DeStefano told the Senate judiciary committee about the fear she felt when she received an ominous phone call on a Friday last April.

Thinking the unknown number was a doctor’s office, she answered the phone just before 5pm on the final ring. On the other end of the line was her 15-year-old daughter – or at least what sounded exactly like her daughter’s voice.

“On the other end was our daughter Briana sobbing and crying saying ‘Mom’.”

Briana was on a ski trip when the incident took place so DeStefano assumed she injured herself and was calling let her know.

DeStefano heard the voice of her daughter and recreated the interaction for her audience: “‘Mom, I messed up’ with more crying and sobbing. Not thinking twice, I asked her again, ‘OK, what happened?’”

She continued: “Suddenly a man’s voice barked at her to ‘lay down and put your head back’.”

Panic immediately set in and DeStefano said she then demanded to know what was happening.

“Nothing could have prepared me for her response,” Defano said.

Defano said she heard her daughter say: “‘Mom these bad men have me. Help me! Help me!’ She begged and pleaded as the phone was taken from her.”

“Listen here, I have your daughter. You tell anyone, you call the cops, I am going to pump her stomach so full of drugs,” a man on the line then said to DeStefano.

The man then told DeStefano he “would have his way” with her daughter and drop her off in Mexico, and that she’d never see her again.

At the time of the phone call, DeStefano was at her other daughter Aubrey’s dance rehearsal. She put the phone on mute and screamed for help, which captured the attention of nearby parents who called 911 for her.

DeStefano negotiated with the fake kidnappers until police arrived. At first, they set the ransom at $1m and then lowered it to $50,000 when DeStefano told them such a high price was impossible.

She asked for a routing number and wiring instructions but the man refused that method because it could be “traced” and demanded cash instead.

DeStefano said she was told that she would be picked up in a white van with bag over her head so that she wouldn’t know where she was going.

She said he told her: “If I didn’t have all the money, then we were both going to be dead.”

But another parent with her informed her police were aware of AI scams like these. DeStefano then made contact with her actual daughter and husband, who confirmed repeatedly that they were fine.

“At that point, I hung up and collapsed to the floor in tears of relief,” DeStefano said.

When DeStefano tried to file a police report after the ordeal, she was dismissed and told this was a “prank call”.

A survey by McAfee, a computer security software company, found that 70% of people said they weren’t confident they could tell the difference between a cloned voice and the real thing. McAfee also said it takes only three seconds of audio to replicate a person’s voice.

DeStefano urged lawmakers to act in order prevent scams like these from hurting other people.

She said: “If left uncontrolled, unregulated, and we are left unprotected without consequence, it will rewrite our understanding and perception what is and what is not truth. It will erode our sense of ‘familiar’ as it corrodes our confidence in what is real and what is not.”

13
14
15
 
 

This news is “stunning” say many cybersecurity experts; it’s so bad that a patch can’t resolve it, companies have to completely stop using these (very expensive) machines and get new ones.

16
 
 

Clop seems to be on a roll, first with GoAnywhere and now with Moveit

17
18
 
 

An overview of the main areas companies need to pay attention to and the tools they can use to get their cybersecurity in better shape.

19
20
 
 

Register for the streamyard URL, no account needed.

21
22
23
24
25
view more: next ›