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

8/28/2015
02:30 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

FBI Sounds Alarm Again On Business Email Compromise Threat

Over 7,000 US business have been victimized by so-called BEC fraud between October 2013 and August 2015 alone, the FBI said in an alert this week.

Over the past two years, cybercriminals have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from US businesses by compromising their official email accounts and using those accounts to initiate fraudulent wire transfers.

Between October 2013 and August 2015, over 7,000 US businesses were victimized by the so-called Business Email Compromise (BEC) scam and reported a staggering $748 million in actual and attempted losses, the FBI said in an alert issued late yesterday.

Around the world, another 1,113 companies reported similar incidents over the same period. The FBI estimated losses from these incidents at around $51 million.

The FBI alert described the scam as being primarily targeted at businesses that work with foreign suppliers and who regularly conduct wire transfer payments from the US to the foreign supplier. According to the FBI, BEC is a scam in which attackers try to gain access to a business email account belonging to a CFO, CTO, or some high-ranking executive using phishing and social engineering techniques.

In recent times, there has been an increase in the use of computer intrusion techniques to gain access to business email accounts, the FBI said. Many of these intrusions are initiated using sophisticated phishing scams in which victims are sent an email that appears to come from a legitimate source. When an unsuspecting user clicks on the malicious link attached to the email, it drops malware on the system that steals the victim’s data, including passwords and financial account information.

The attackers then use the compromised email account to send instructions to the company’s bank, or to someone with authority at the company to initiate a wire transfer request to a foreign bank account. Many of the fraudulent transfers at going to banks located with China and Hong Kong, the FBI said.

This week’s alert is the second one that the FBI has issued on the topic since January signaling its leveling of concern over the issue. The agency first sounded the alarm in January, when the FBI said it expected the number of victims and the total dollar loss for the scam to skyrocket.

"The BEC scam continues to grow and evolve and it targets businesses of all sizes," this week's FBI alert said. "There has been a 270 percent increase in identified victims and exposed loss since January 2015."

Between January and August, the FBI said it has seen a new tactic being used by attackers to try and pry loose sensitive data from business executives that they can use to initiate fake wire transfers. This tactic involves top executives being contacted by fraudsters posing as lawyers and legal representatives on some confidential or time-sensitive matter. Victims are pressured to act quickly or confidentially in transferring funds. Often, such scams happen at the end of a workday or work week, the FBI cautioned.

Another tactic used by attackers to trick companies into parting with their money is to send spoofed emails purportedly from a supplier requesting that funds for an invoice payment be sent to an alternate account.

The FBI has some recommendations for businesses that want to avoid becoming victims of the scam. Among that is the recommendation to create new intrusion detection system rules to flag emails with extensions that are similar to the company’s official email. "For example, legitimate e-mail ofabc_company.com would flag fraudulent e-mail of abc-company.com," the FBI said.

Similarly, the FBI encouraged businesses to register all company domains that are slightly different from the actual company name and to add a two-factor authentication mechanism to verify changes in vendor or supplier location. 

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
100%
0%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
8/30/2015 | 11:34:25 PM
Phishing attempts
Good luck reducing successful phishing attempts to zero, in any case.  One speaker at a conference I attended recently discussed a study in which employees of a company were sent a "fake" phishing email by their IT department that said something to the effect, "WARNING.  THIS IS A PHISHING EMAIL.  DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK" -- and still about 10% of employees clicked the link.  When asked why they did, the universal response was, "I wanted to see what would happen."
macker490
0%
100%
macker490,
User Rank: Ninja
8/29/2015 | 9:25:45 AM
two stupid errors -- not sophisticated
error No. 1 using an insecure o/s

a secure o/s is one which will not allow itselft to be compromised by the activity of an application program such as e/mail or flash

 

error no. 2 failure to authenticate

by now everyone should have incorporated PGP/Desktop into their Outlook systems -- or switched to ENIGMAIL/Thunderbird .  where these have not been done a phone call to confirm the e/mail should be used .   

 

do security or pay the hackers.   your choice .
Sodinokibi Ransomware: Where Attackers' Money Goes
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  10/15/2019
Data Privacy Protections for the Most Vulnerable -- Children
Dimitri Sirota, Founder & CEO of BigID,  10/17/2019
State of SMB Insecurity by the Numbers
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  10/17/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
2019 Online Malware and Threats
2019 Online Malware and Threats
As cyberattacks become more frequent and more sophisticated, enterprise security teams are under unprecedented pressure to respond. Is your organization ready?
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-8087
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-22
Information Leakage in PPPoE Packet Padding in AVM Fritz!Box 7490 with Firmware versions Fritz!OS 6.80 and 6.83 allows physically proximate attackers to view slices of previously transmitted packets or portions of memory via via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2019-10079
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-22
Apache Traffic Server is vulnerable to HTTP/2 setting flood attacks. Earlier versions of Apache Traffic Server didn't limit the number of setting frames sent from the client using the HTTP/2 protocol. Users should upgrade to Apache Traffic Server 7.1.7, 8.0.4, or later versions.
CVE-2019-12147
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-22
The Sangoma Session Border Controller (SBC) 2.3.23-119 GA web interface is vulnerable to Argument Injection via special characters in the username field. Upon successful exploitation, a remote unauthenticated user can create a local system user with sudo privileges, and use that user to login to the...
CVE-2019-12148
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-22
The Sangoma Session Border Controller (SBC) 2.3.23-119 GA web interface is vulnerable to an authentication bypass via an argument injection vulnerability involving special characters in the username field. Upon successful exploitation, a remote unauthenticated user can login into the device's admin ...
CVE-2019-12290
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-22
GNU libidn2 before 2.2.0 fails to perform the roundtrip checks specified in RFC3490 Section 4.2 when converting A-labels to U-labels. This makes it possible in some circumstances for one domain to impersonate another. By creating a malicious domain that matches a target domain except for the inclusi...