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.

Comments
Cybercrime Dipped During Holiday Shopping Season
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Sara Peters
50%
50%
Sara Peters,
User Rank: Author
1/5/2015 | 4:23:34 PM
Unexpected
Well this certainly seems to conflict with the common beliefs. I wonder if the sample size is big enough...
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
1/5/2015 | 4:26:01 PM
Re: Unexpected
The retail sample for the holiday season was indeed relatively small, but the overall sample across industries was pretty substantial given IBM's client base. They also used data from the Privacy Clearinghouse on breaches that were reported. 
Sara Peters
50%
50%
Sara Peters,
User Rank: Author
1/5/2015 | 4:30:59 PM
Re: Unexpected
Thanks Kelly! Good to know. It's also weird to me that in 2013-14 manufacturing was hit hard during the holiday season. Shows what I know.
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
1/5/2015 | 4:48:03 PM
Re: Unexpected
I had to think twice when I saw manufacturing, too. My gut is maybe it's because they have skeletal staff during the holidays as well.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/6/2015 | 3:38:44 PM
Patching Pushed Back
That's interesting. It never even crossed my mind that that pushing back of patches due to the holiday season would be a security hole but not its glaringly obvious. But I do think that pushing back patches, though widely practiced, is unnecessary. Change management from planning to implementation in a test environment should drastically cut down on any delays the organization could incur. Not applying necessary patches in the idea that you are saving functionality is just negligent. Its poor planning.
boconnor@henryscheinvet.com
50%
50%
[email protected],
User Rank: Apprentice
1/9/2015 | 3:28:52 PM
Suspect numbers
Nice article, but I have two problems with it.  First is, and no offense to IBM - a giant in the tech industry, but I do not see IBM as a company I rely on for IT security or IT security information.  Secondly I feel this article may have been written about 4 months too early.  I think no one in IT Security is confident the security incidents from the holidays have been fully reported yet, or will be for months.
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
1/9/2015 | 3:33:25 PM
Re: Suspect numbers
@boconnor, you are spot on that we don't know everything yet. IBM even noted (see below, from the article) that we don't know the whole picture yet: 

And some retailers may not yet know they've been infiltrated with malware, whether it was planted during the holiday shopping season or afterward. "A lot of attacks during the holiday last year were uncovered later," Strand says


Cybersecurity Industry: It's Time to Stop the Victim Blame Game
Jessica Smith, Senior Vice President, The Crypsis Group,  2/25/2020
Google Adds More Security Features Via Chronicle Division
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/25/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
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
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. 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-2020-9431
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-27
In Wireshark 3.2.0 to 3.2.1, 3.0.0 to 3.0.8, and 2.6.0 to 2.6.14, the LTE RRC dissector could leak memory. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-lte-rrc.c by adjusting certain append operations.
CVE-2020-9432
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-27
openssl_x509_check_host in lua-openssl 0.7.7-1 mishandles X.509 certificate validation because it uses lua_pushboolean for certain non-boolean return values.
CVE-2020-9433
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-27
openssl_x509_check_email in lua-openssl 0.7.7-1 mishandles X.509 certificate validation because it uses lua_pushboolean for certain non-boolean return values.
CVE-2020-9434
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-27
openssl_x509_check_ip_asc in lua-openssl 0.7.7-1 mishandles X.509 certificate validation because it uses lua_pushboolean for certain non-boolean return values.
CVE-2020-6383
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-27
Type confusion in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 80.0.3987.116 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page.