Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

2/15/2017
08:40 PM
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Clinton Campaign Tested Staffers With Fake Phishing Emails

Campaign stressed good IT hygiene, according to manager Robby Mook, who said the fake phishing emails were used to gauge effectiveness of security training for staffers,

RSA CONFERENCE – San Francisco – Email leaks notwithstanding, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook says the campaign conducted regular security training for staffers, which included sending fake phishing emails to campaign staffers to see how they'd be handled.

"We sent out phishing emails of our own to test people and communicate back to team to see how far they were clicking, to educate people, and show their vulnerability and how much their choices matter," Mook said in an interview at RSA Conference. He recalls at least three faux-phishing tests, adding there may have been more.

Mook says the campaign also emailed staffers regularly about good IT hygiene. "We had signs up in the bathrooms about not sharing passwords and 'Don't click on that link, stop and think'," Mook says. Staff meetings also included regular security updates from the campaign's IT director, he adds.

Mook made the rounds at the RSA Conference here this week, speaking about user vulnerability to inside attacks and speaking at the Global Insider Threat Summit sponsored by security vendor Dtex Systems.

Mook also wants to make clear that it was the Democratic National Committee's servers that were hacked, not those of the Clinton campaign. The distinction is important; the campaign suffered from emails that were leaked from personal email accounts, notably, those from candidate Clinton, campaign chairman John Podesta, and other staffers. Hackers may have been helped by real phishing emails that Podesta or other users clicked on, and ultimately gave up addresses and passwords.

The DNC, separate from the Clinton campaign, had its servers hacked sometime in 2016; WikiLeaks published excerpts in July.

"We reminded people to keep [campaign] information out of their personal accounts," Mook told Dark Reading. And they tried to encourage use of two-factor authentication and stronger passwords. The campaign also encouraged people to use texting when they didn't want something showing up in email, Mook says.

What happened to the Clinton campaign wasn't the result of malicious insiders but rather staffers clicking on a bad link, and the organization's inability to mitigate an inside threat, Mook adds.

Some 68% of breaches can be traced back to some kind of employee negligence, says Dtex CEO Christy Wyatt. Her company teamed with Ponemon Research on a study called 2016 Costs of Insider Threats that surveyed 240 IT and security professionals.

But whether it's a national political campaign, state or local governments or even SMBs, there's not enormous sensitivity to the threat level that cyberattacks pose, Mook says. "Campaigns are money-strapped and security got pushed down - but that won't be the case in the future," he adds.

Political figures are vulnerable and prone to these sorts of online attacks. "They need to plan for the most aggressive attacks," Mooks says.

Had the DNC been outfitted with a more robust system to monitor for inside threats, they may have caught the breach sooner, Mook claims. "The potential to disrupt like the Russians did is huge. We have to take steps to prevent that sort of thing from happening again."

Mook believes there's genuine bipartisan interest in security, pointing across the aisle to recent comments from Republican Senators John McCain, Mike McCall, and Marco Rubio. "If anyone is concerned about this, it's politicians themselves," Mook says. "They understand they may be the ones hurt tomorrow" by careless insiders, bad actors, and breaches.

Related Content:

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Terry Sweeney is a Los Angeles-based writer and editor who has covered technology, networking, and security for more than 20 years. He was part of the team that started Dark Reading and has been a contributor to The Washington Post, Crain's New York Business, Red Herring, ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
ChispaTD
50%
50%
ChispaTD,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/21/2017 | 3:45:12 PM
Re: What a Surprise!
I'm not surprised. The fastest way to get someone to do something, especially an exec, is to tell the person not to do it. 
ChispaTD
50%
50%
ChispaTD,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/21/2017 | 3:29:26 PM
Re: What a Surprise!
I'd like to know that as well. How effective is it to run these tests if it's not rolled out across the entire organization?
mikeroch
50%
50%
mikeroch,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/20/2017 | 9:59:30 AM
Email phishing for 192.168 0l 1
Email phishing is hell, it should not be executed at any cost.
Joe Stanganelli
100%
0%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/20/2017 | 5:30:13 AM
Re: What a Surprise!
@Terry: I'm aware of at least one situation in which fake phishing emails were sent within a major organization explicitly warning users "DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK" and explaining that it was an example of a phishing email.

10% of the users still clicked -- including one C-suiter.

The C-suiter's justification for clicking?  "I wanted to see what would happen."
tompendergast
100%
0%
tompendergast,
User Rank: Author
2/17/2017 | 10:48:51 AM
Re: What a Surprise!
Good article, thanks. I'm convinced that it's the combination of simulated phishing, relevant training, and persistent reinforcement that is the key to building up human capacity. It sounds like this group did it right. 
kasstri
100%
0%
kasstri,
User Rank: Strategist
2/16/2017 | 5:43:48 PM
keyboard
This is really a nice post. Thanks for sharing this us.
T Sweeney
100%
0%
T Sweeney,
User Rank: Moderator
2/16/2017 | 1:44:01 PM
Re: What a Surprise!
I understand wanting to protect the egos of execs, but at the expense of the organization's security?

Is the assumption, then, that your execs open all their email (unlikely) and click on all links (very unlikely)?

Separately, I'd love to know how common this practice is of sending fake phishing emails to test training effectiveness, and what other conditions get used in the exercise.
jries921
50%
50%
jries921,
User Rank: Ninja
2/16/2017 | 11:55:42 AM
Re: What a Surprise!
If the practice really does have management support, then senior managers won't be exempted.  If John Podesta was exempted, I'm sure he regrets it now.
ClarenceR927
50%
50%
ClarenceR927,
User Rank: Strategist
2/16/2017 | 9:35:32 AM
What a Surprise!
We test too. Naturally we are not allowed to send our test phish upstream in the coproration as it would be embarassing for the executives to get caught.  I wonder if Podesta as also skipped on the tests.
HackerOne Drops Mobile Voting App Vendor Voatz
Dark Reading Staff 3/30/2020
Limited-Time Free Offers to Secure the Enterprise Amid COVID-19
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  3/31/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
Data breaches and regulations have forced organizations to pay closer attention to the security incident response function. However, security leaders may be overestimating their ability to detect and respond to security incidents. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11565
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-06
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 5.6.2. mpol_parse_str in mm/mempolicy.c has a stack-based out-of-bounds write because an empty nodelist is mishandled during mount option parsing, aka CID-aa9f7d5172fa.
CVE-2020-11558
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-05
An issue was discovered in libgpac.a in GPAC 0.8.0, as demonstrated by MP4Box. audio_sample_entry_Read in isomedia/box_code_base.c does not properly decide when to make gf_isom_box_del calls. This leads to various use-after-free outcomes involving mdia_Read, gf_isom_delete_movie, and gf_isom_parse_m...
CVE-2020-11547
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-05
PRTG Network Monitor before 20.1.57.1745 allows remote unauthenticated attackers to obtain information about probes running or the server itself (CPU usage, memory, Windows version, and internal statistics) via an HTTP request, as demonstrated by type=probes to login.htm or index.htm.
CVE-2020-11548
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-05
The Search Meter plugin through 2.13.2 for WordPress allows user input introduced in the search bar to be any formula. The attacker could achieve remote code execution via CSV injection if a wp-admin/index.php?page=search-meter Export is performed.
CVE-2020-11542
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-04
3xLOGIC Infinias eIDC32 2.213 devices with Web 1.107 allow Authentication Bypass via CMD.HTM?CMD= because authentication depends on the client side's interpretation of the <KEY>MYKEY</KEY> substring.