Analytics
8/6/2010
10:30 PM
50%
50%

Tech Insight: Building The Right Defense Against Social Engineering

Defcon capture-the-flag contest shows humans are still the enterprise's weakest link

Was your company targeted during last week's Social Engineering Capture the Flag event at the Defcon conference? If it was, would you know?

The contest caused quite a stir in several industries -- in fact, the FBI contacted the contest's organizers to discuss concerns that sensitive, personal information would be targeted.

So what's the big deal? Social engineering is certainly nothing new. However, the contest -- and the associated press coverage -- managed to raise a new level of concern. Some companies went as far as to send out information to their employees and customers warning them about the upcoming contest.

We've all used social engineering to get what we want -- even when we were children. Now we're faced by attackers who are using it against our companies to get what they want. The question so many future victims ask is what would an attacker want from them? The answer is simple: information.

Maybe your company is the direct target of an attacker, or maybe it's simply a stepping stone to a bigger fish. Either way, social engineering is the most effective tool that an attacker can use against your company. You can patch every desktop and segregate every sensitive network segment, but you can't accurately predict your employees' behavior when facing a cleverly designed attack.

The best defense against social engineering is awareness and training -- with policies to back both. You and your employees should know the most common technical forms of social engineering attacks. Phishing, instant messaging, and social networks are the three attack vectors your users face.

Those three attack vectors have two things in common: They insulate attackers from face-to-face communications, and they're extremely effective. Novice social engineers often opt for these online methods because they require less skill to perform successfully than talking to a target on the phone or walking through the front door.

Using any of these three vectors, an attacker can entice users into providing their credentials. The most common targets are the places where the credentials are collected via email or through a form on a Website. The attack site is set up to mimic a legitimate site the user would expect to see and trust.

In many cases, users are tricked into thinking there is an urgency to provide their user names and passwords. They fall for a scam that threatens to terminate their access to bank or email accounts; they're convinced to take swift steps to help a co-worker.

Sophisticated social engineering techniques, like those demonstrated in the Social Engineering CTF, require preparation to know details about the target organization and those who work there. But that's not always enough, even when combined with confidence. An understanding of human behaviors is needed, and knowing the correct gestures and language to use in specific situations is often necessary to be successful.

The most common personal attack vectors, as described by the Social Engineering Framework at Social-Engineer.org, include customer service, tech support, and delivery persons. Each of these vectors requires talking to the victims on the phone or interacting in person. This is where attacks often fail because the attacker doesn't know enough about the target -- or fails to gain the victim's confidence.

Chris Hadnagy, organizer of the Social Engineering CTF contest, said, "Every company where we were able to contact a human, [the contestants] were successful at social engineering them." Two employees at a target company did thwart one contestant's efforts because the questions sounded "fishy."

Previous
1 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Latest Comment: nice post
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Threat Intel Today
Threat Intel Today
The 397 respondents to our new survey buy into using intel to stay ahead of attackers: 85% say threat intelligence plays some role in their IT security strategies, and many of them subscribe to two or more third-party feeds; 10% leverage five or more.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-1750
Published: 2015-07-01
Open redirect vulnerability in nokia-mapsplaces.php in the Nokia Maps & Places plugin 1.6.6 for WordPress allows remote attackers to redirect users to arbitrary web sites and conduct phishing attacks via a URL in the href parameter to page/place.html. NOTE: this was originally reported as cross-sit...

CVE-2014-1836
Published: 2015-07-01
Absolute path traversal vulnerability in htdocs/libraries/image-editor/image-edit.php in ImpressCMS before 1.3.6 allows remote attackers to delete arbitrary files via a full pathname in the image_path parameter in a cancel action.

CVE-2015-0848
Published: 2015-07-01
Heap-based buffer overflow in libwmf 0.2.8.4 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted BMP image.

CVE-2015-1330
Published: 2015-07-01
unattended-upgrades before 0.86.1 does not properly authenticate packages when the (1) force-confold or (2) force-confnew dpkg options are enabled in the DPkg::Options::* apt configuration, which allows remote man-in-the-middle attackers to upload and execute arbitrary packages via unspecified vecto...

CVE-2015-1950
Published: 2015-07-01
IBM PowerVC Standard Edition 1.2.2.1 through 1.2.2.2 does not require authentication for access to the Python interpreter with nova credentials, which allows KVM guest OS users to discover certain PowerVC credentials and bypass intended access restrictions via unspecified Python code.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Marc Spitler, co-author of the Verizon DBIR will share some of the lesser-known but most intriguing tidbits from the massive report