Vulnerabilities / Threats

9/21/2011
12:20 PM
50%
50%

Social Engineering Attacks Cost Companies

Half of businesses have experienced more than 25 successful social engineering attacks in the past two years, with some having to spend up to $100,000 per incident in cleanup costs.

Strategic Security Survey: Global Threat, LocalPain
Strategic Security Survey: Global Threat, Local Pain
(click image for larger view and for full slideshow)
In the past two years, 48% of large businesses have suffered from socially engineered attacks at least 25 times, resulting in losses of between $25,000 and $100,000 per incident.

Those findings come from a new survey of 850 IT and security professionals in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, conducted by Dimensional Research and sponsored by Check Point Software Technologies.

Social engineered attacks are a growing threat, according to 86% of survey respondents. By their estimates, attackers' primary motivation is stealing financial information, followed by extracting trade secrets, or revenge. Meanwhile, the primary tool used for social engineering attacks is the phishing email, followed by using social networking sites that disclose employees' personal details.

Many CIOs see socially engineered attacks--aka "hacking the human"--as one of the primary threats facing corporate networks. While emerging strains of malware can often be countered using sophisticated technology defenses, social engineering targets what's often the weakest link in the security equation: people.

[Learn 7 crucial tips for surviving a zero-day attack from a CIO who lived through one.]

Furthermore, by socially engineering the right employee, attackers can gain a toehold in the corporate network, then use it to exploit sensitive information. In the case of the breach of RSA, for example, attackers socially engineered using a relatively unsophisticated technique: they sent an email with the subject line "2011 Recruitment Plan" to two small groups of RSA employees. One of the employees retrieved the email from their junk mailbox and opened the spreadsheet, which was really a piece of malware designed to provide the attacker with a direct connection into RSA's network. From there, the attacker was able to harvest the user's credentials and ultimately access sensitive information relating to RSA's two-factor SecurID system.

According to the survey, one-third of businesses don't train employees to avoid social engineering attacks, although half of them said they plan to do so. "At the end of the day, people are a critical part of the security process as they can be misled by criminals and make mistakes that lead to malware infections or unintentional data loss," said Oded Gonda, vice president of security products at Check Point, in a statement. "Many organizations do not pay enough attention to the involvement of users, when, in fact, employees should be the first line of defense."

Interestingly, some types of employees see more socially engineered attacks than others. Respondents to the Check Point survey said that new employees seemed to be the most susceptible to social engineering attacks, followed by contractors, executive assistants, HR employees, senior managers, and IT personnel.

After experiencing a successful social engineering attack, businesses said they typically suffered business disruption and lost productivity, lost revenue, and needed to detail experienced IT personnel to undo damage or conduct a forensic analysis. As a result, roughly half of survey respondents said their related per-incident response costs totaled at least $25,000, while 30% of larger businesses said they'd seen per-incident costs of more than $100,000. In general, social engineering attack clean-up costs were greater for businesses in the financial services and manufacturing industries.

Attend Enterprise 2.0 Santa Clara, Nov. 14-17, 2011, and learn how to drive business value with collaboration, with an emphasis on how real customers are using social software to enable more productive workforces and to be more responsive and engaged with customers and business partners. Register today and save 30% off conference passes, or get a free expo pass with priority code CPHCES02. Find out more and register.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
JuneSanchez
50%
50%
JuneSanchez,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/8/2011 | 8:19:26 PM
re: Social Engineering Attacks Cost Companies
My company was hit by attackers all the time. We are in the process of having a social engineer pentest after listening to Ioactive's Matias Brutti and Mike Ridpath's social engineering talk it opened my eyes to the importance and now I'm reading every article I can find on the subject.
More Than Half of Users Reuse Passwords
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  5/24/2018
Is Threat Intelligence Garbage?
Chris McDaniels, Chief Information Security Officer of Mosaic451,  5/23/2018
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-2018-11505
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-26
The Werewolf Online application 0.8.8 for Android allows attackers to discover the Firebase token by reading logcat output.
CVE-2018-6409
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-26
An issue was discovered in Appnitro MachForm before 4.2.3. The module in charge of serving stored files gets the path from the database. Modifying the name of the file to serve on the corresponding ap_form table leads to a path traversal vulnerability via the download.php q parameter.
CVE-2018-6410
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-26
An issue was discovered in Appnitro MachForm before 4.2.3. There is a download.php SQL injection via the q parameter.
CVE-2018-6411
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-26
An issue was discovered in Appnitro MachForm before 4.2.3. When the form is set to filter a blacklist, it automatically adds dangerous extensions to the filters. If the filter is set to a whitelist, the dangerous extensions can be bypassed through ap_form_elements SQL Injection.
CVE-2018-11500
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-26
An issue was discovered in PublicCMS V4.0.20180210. There is a CSRF vulnerability in "admin/sysUser/save.do?callbackType=closeCurrent&navTabId=sysUser/list" that can add an admin account.