Comments
How I Would Hack Your Network (If I Woke Up Evil)
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
No SOPA
50%
50%
No SOPA,
User Rank: Ninja
7/31/2017 | 2:28:06 PM
Re: %
I love that idea, Joe, of forcing completion of a 5-minute InfoSec training :-)  I've worked at orgs before where you essentially worked within a locked down piece of software with no access to anything else, but freeing up the desktop with the illusion of freedom presents lots of "teachable moment" opportunities for getting training compliance up-to-snuff quickly!
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/18/2017 | 1:33:31 PM
Re: Phishing emails (responding to Joe's comment)
@Peter: Wow. Awesome insights. Thanks for trying this and sharing!

I guess you'd really need an A/B grouping while testing frequency. Group A gets subject line A, Group B gets subject line B. Then that would give you a better idea on if it was more the frequency or the subject line.

But this is cool info to go on. I think people are on to the "pretending to be your bank" scam...but the HR stuff has been pretty hot among scammers lately because it's new (and, also, I suspect, because it's about something interesting enough to be worth an email open but not so jarringly enticing that it's automatically suspicious). 
Petar Zivovic
50%
50%
Petar Zivovic,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/14/2017 | 5:30:27 PM
Re: Phishing emails (responding to Joe's comment)
I did exactly one a week for May, then did only one for June.

Result: Frequency seems to have little to no effect. Content has a big effect.

Examples: testing "Outlook password change required" and "Mint Financial Access" got few or no clicks.

But I got over two dozen clicks on "HR Notification re:Vacation policy change".

"Mint" was the one sent a month after the weekly tests were done.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
3/17/2017 | 11:53:36 AM
Re: Phishing emails (responding to Joe's comment)
@Petar: Fascinating.  I wonder what would happen if you upped the frequency (say, once a week) for a month or so, and then dropped back down to "normal" levels.
Petar Zivovic
50%
50%
Petar Zivovic,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/16/2017 | 12:29:55 PM
Re: Phishing emails (responding to Joe's comment)
The service we use allows for a number of templates, sender domains, subjects, etc. Given the wide variety of testing, I would lean towards the 16% being an accurate measure of susceptibility within the company as of that point in time. Note: I am seeing actual phishing emails being submitted for analysis using our phish tool on a daily basis, along with the usual spam and unwanted email, so at least some people are in fact paying attention.

"It's the difference between not slowing down on the highway as a matter of safety vs. slowing down on the highway because you think there's a speed trap ahead." This is a very good point. The number did go up when I missed a month of testing, so people apparently let down their guard. Seems to me that is just part of human nature for some people - they won't discipline themselves unless someone else is watching them. That being said, it's still way better than the initial baseline test.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
3/16/2017 | 11:25:40 AM
Re: Phishing emails (responding to Joe's comment)
@Petar: Does the 16% refer to overall phishing susceptibility, or susceptibility to the fake phishing email itself?

How much of this do you think is potentially attributed to people "learning" what's a "fake" phishing email?

For instance, I wonder to what extent people are thinking, "Oh, that's that wily IT department again.  I don't want to have to do another 5-minute training" (or whatever), vs. "Oh, I shouldn't click on that because it might be bad"?

It's the difference between not slowing down on the highway as a matter of safety vs. slowing down on the highway because you think there's a speed trap ahead.
kasstri
50%
50%
kasstri,
User Rank: Strategist
3/1/2017 | 6:52:04 AM
keyboard
Sure, there are more exciting and terrible things that can happen to bypass antivirus, but if you're not even doing that, then that's pretty lax.
Petar Zivovic
50%
50%
Petar Zivovic,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/28/2017 | 2:00:30 PM
Re: Phishing emails (responding to Joe's comment)
Re: sending fake phishing emails to train: Exactly right. It's effective when done on an ongoing basis (at least once a month.) I have seen the susceptibility rate fall to below 1% and stay there, which I consider phenomenal - until I forgot to do it one month. Then next month, it went up to 16%.

As Jefferson said, the Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.
Kumzy
50%
50%
Kumzy,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/19/2017 | 8:04:34 AM
Re: %
That is a very great idea. My organization did the same thing about last week IT security sent out an e-mail that webcams had been installed in tbe breakroom refrigerators to forestal people stealing other peoples lunches a link was then provided to view the cam when you click on this link it takes you to a log in page which asks for your log in credentials, needless to say rumor started going round among staff about the webcams and people were curious about the issue so some clicked on the link and supplied their credentials and a message popped up that they have just willingly given up their credentials for a phising attack.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/2/2017 | 4:07:24 AM
Re: AV vs. DDOD or social engineering
I wouldn't go so far as to say that antivirus = outdated -- at least as a sole lines of defense.

Maintaining up-to-date antivirus is like locking your door.  Sure, there are more exciting and terrible things that can happen to bypass antivirus, but if you're not even doing that, then that's pretty lax.
Page 1 / 3   >   >>


High Stress Levels Impacting CISOs Physically, Mentally
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  2/14/2019
Valentine's Emails Laced with Gandcrab Ransomware
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/14/2019
Making the Case for a Cybersecurity Moon Shot
Adam Shostack, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Technologist, Game Designer,  2/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Data breach fears and the need to comply with regulations such as GDPR are two major drivers increased spending on security products and technologies. But other factors are contributing to the trend as well. Find out more about how enterprises are attacking the cybersecurity problem by reading our report today.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-8980
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
A memory leak in the kernel_read_file function in fs/exec.c in the Linux kernel through 4.20.11 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering vfs_read failures.
CVE-2019-8979
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Koseven through 3.3.9, and Kohana through 3.3.6, has SQL Injection when the order_by() parameter can be controlled.
CVE-2013-7469
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Seafile through 6.2.11 always uses the same Initialization Vector (IV) with Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) Mode to encrypt private data, making it easier to conduct chosen-plaintext attacks or dictionary attacks.
CVE-2018-20146
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
An issue was discovered in Liquidware ProfileUnity before 6.8.0 with Liquidware FlexApp before 6.8.0. A local user could obtain administrator rights, as demonstrated by use of PowerShell.
CVE-2019-5727
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Splunk Web in Splunk Enterprise 6.5.x before 6.5.5, 6.4.x before 6.4.9, 6.3.x before 6.3.12, 6.2.x before 6.2.14, 6.1.x before 6.1.14, and 6.0.x before 6.0.15 and Splunk Light before 6.6.0 has Persistent XSS, aka SPL-138827.