Vulnerabilities / Threats

4/6/2017
02:40 PM
Kelly Sheridan
Kelly Sheridan
Slideshows
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

7 Ways Hackers Target Your Employees

One employee under reconnaissance by cyberattackers can put your whole business at risk. Where are they being targeted, and what should they know?
Previous
1 of 8
Next

(Image: Bluebay via Shutterstock)

(Image: Bluebay via Shutterstock)

Cybercriminals are testing the strength of your organization's defensive wall, looking for the one crack they need to launch their attacks. Oftentimes that flaw isn't a "what," but a "who."

Employees only need to download a bad attachment, click a malicious link, or give attackers one piece of information they need to break in. Security is a business-wide responsibility.

"Companies need to realize if their employees are picking up the phone and answering emails, they are making security decisions every day that can affect the company," says Michele Fincher, COO for Social-Engineer, Inc. "They don't realize how many good decisions employees need to make to be secure."

Addressing the importance of security during annual training sessions isn't enough, says Fincher. "If you only talk about it once a year, you're doing the staff a grave disservice."

Social engineering attacks also make it harder to differentiate legitimate from malicious activity. In the past, cybercriminals needed more technical skills to launch attacks. These days, they can wreak havoc with social network browsing, phone calls, and emails. They can conduct surveillance without raising red flags.

As Social-Engineer, Inc. CEO Chris Hadnagy explains, "There's no bar for entry for an attacker."

Here are seven common strategies attackers use to target employees. Share these with your teams to inform them of today's dangers and where hackers may be hiding.

 

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 8
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
zaltter
50%
50%
zaltter,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/10/2017 | 3:30:30 AM
Website
Problem with linkedin is, we really need it... this is a total open door for hakers...
RyanSepe
100%
0%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
4/7/2017 | 8:37:59 AM
"LinkedIn is one of the biggest sources of wealth for the bad guys,"
At SecureWorld Philadelphia, it was demonstrated that LinkedIn will typically catalog the individuals organization and software packages they are familiar with. This type of recon allows for the attacker to hone down the amount of exploits he or she will need to review when crafting a phishing attack.
Want Your Daughter to Succeed in Cyber? Call Her John
John De Santis, CEO, HyTrust,  5/16/2018
New Mexico Man Sentenced on DDoS, Gun Charges
Dark Reading Staff 5/18/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
Most enterprises are using threat intel services, but many are still figuring out how to use the data they're collecting. In this Dark Reading survey we give you a look at what they're doing today - and where they hope to go.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-11354
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the IEEE 1905.1a dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-ieee1905.c by making a certain correction to string handling.
CVE-2018-11355
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the RTCP dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-rtcp.c by avoiding a buffer overflow for packet status chunks.
CVE-2018-11356
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the DNS dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-dns.c by avoiding a NULL pointer dereference for an empty name in an SRV record.
CVE-2018-11357
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the LTP dissector and other dissectors could consume excessive memory. This was addressed in epan/tvbuff.c by rejecting negative lengths.
CVE-2018-11358
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the Q.931 dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-q931.c by avoiding a use-after-free after a malformed packet prevented certain cleanup.