Comments
Data Breaches at Timehop, Macy's Highlight Need for Multi-Factor Authentication
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
No SOPA
100%
0%
No SOPA,
User Rank: Ninja
7/10/2018 | 9:09:41 AM
Re: Culture > MFA
I agree but I would also note that even with valid credentials some MFA solutions that require both a mobile token and answering a revolving question from a pool of pre-configuered questions could still stop such intrusions.  Additionally, while still young, risk-based authentication (RBA) on top of that could also help weed out bad actors with valid credentials. 
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/9/2018 | 8:10:20 PM
Culture > MFA
While MFA could certainly have prevented or mitigated the damage from these breaches or breaches like these, in my experience these types of breaches tend to have a more fundamental cause beyond a lack of MFA: a lack of a good security culture that led to exploitable weaknesses to begin with.

Case in point here: securitynow.com/author.asp?section_id=613&doc_id=734774
No SOPA
50%
50%
No SOPA,
User Rank: Ninja
7/9/2018 | 7:13:05 PM
Improvements in MFA Could Help
Since I don't design solutions, I haven't put too much deep thought into this yet, but over the last year I documented the following statistics and I can see why end users are getting MFA over MFA.  While we are well aware of the need for MFA and similar forms of security, our end users are simply seeing numbers like this and resisting.  Some have the smarts to bypass some MFA (though these days the majority of solutions are too smart to bypass) or simply STOP using some sites as often as they need to or should because of numbers like this.  Call me lazy but even for me, a seasoned techie, this seems like a lot of robot calls answered, lots of texts and browser codes entered.

MFA Contacts over 12 Months

MFA Cell Phone Calls:   2,803

MFA Cell Phone Texts: 1,741

MFA Browser-Delivered Codes: 972

But, let's assume the end user complaints have nothing to do with a company choosing to implement MFA (let's be honest, how many orgs really listen to their end-users anyway). The article notes one reason many companies might be skipping the MFA step in their security plan, which is the need for software on both the server and user endpoints. I was involved in an MFA implementation and it became quite complicated. A software install on the server, followed by embedded web code, and then an end-user desktop install on top of a mobile token app.

Again, not a solutions designer but some improvements in MFA could help get organizations to 100% implementation (despite end-user complaints).

 


White House Cybersecurity Strategy at a Crossroads
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  7/17/2018
The Fundamental Flaw in Security Awareness Programs
Ira Winkler, CISSP, President, Secure Mentem,  7/19/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-14492
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-21
Tenda AC7 through V15.03.06.44_CN, AC9 through V15.03.05.19(6318)_CN, and AC10 through V15.03.06.23_CN devices have a Stack-based Buffer Overflow via a long limitSpeed or limitSpeedup parameter to an unspecified /goform URI.
CVE-2018-3770
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
A path traversal exists in markdown-pdf version <9.0.0 that allows a user to insert a malicious html code that can result in reading the local files.
CVE-2018-3771
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
An XSS in statics-server <= 0.0.9 can be used via injected iframe in the filename when statics-server displays directory index in the browser.
CVE-2018-5065
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader 2018.011.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30080 and earlier, and 2015.006.30418 and earlier versions have a Use-after-free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user.
CVE-2018-5066
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader 2018.011.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30080 and earlier, and 2015.006.30418 and earlier versions have an Out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure.