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
Sacramento Bee Databases Hit with Ransomware Attack
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
alphaa10
alphaa10,
User Rank: Strategist
2/17/2018 | 12:23:13 AM
Re: Profound solution?
The measure announced was not to recover the lost data, but to frustrate inevitable future attempts to make the same threat, perhaps with more damage. Once a ransom demand is met, there is nothing to dissuade the same or similar groups from another attack.

Did the newspaper promise a return to paper records? Not at all, but simply a more layered and distributed system, with multiple checkpoints.

Under the circumstances, the Bee declaration helps the newspaper isolate itself from further extortion attempts.

 
BrianN060
BrianN060,
User Rank: Ninja
2/12/2018 | 6:07:58 PM
Looking for correlations
@DR staff: Elements of this story are repeated in any number of cybersecurity articles, surveys, reports, etc..  What I haven't seen is analysis on how specific data storage choices correlate with attack frequency, type, detection, and other characteristics and metrics. 

In this story "...its databases, both on a third-party server...", raises the above questions as regards to use of third party servers; but also leads to questions about attacks and the specifics of type, location, infrastructure, etc.., of such servers. 

Perhaps what I'm looking for is a multidimensional map showing just what particular dangers are known to inhabit various (metaphorical as well as actual), regions.  In other words, are there safer places and containers to bury your treasure? 

I realize this is far from a simple question.  For starters, a single vendor might offer several types of relational and non-relational patterns and management options; and might have options for restricting use to certain geo-located datacenters - and a single organization might use different options, from different vendors, as well as combine public-cloud with in-house storage options. 

Is anyone work on this type of multi-factor threat assessment for data storage choices? 
REISEN1955
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
2/12/2018 | 3:14:51 PM
Profound solution?
The database data is deleted to prevent future theft.  Wow!!!!   What an idea.  Lock the barn door after the theft is done.  Brilliant.  Of course, the data is already out there so who ares about deletion.  Hey, shore up the walls would be a good idea too.  


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Incorporating a Prevention Mindset into Threat Detection and Response
Threat detection and response systems, by definition, are reactive because they have to wait for damage to be done before finding the attack. With a prevention-mindset, security teams can proactively anticipate the attacker's next move, rather than reacting to specific threats or trying to detect the latest techniques in real-time. The report covers areas enterprises should focus on: What positive response looks like. Improving security hygiene. Combining preventive actions with red team efforts.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-22309
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-24
The POWER systems FSP is vulnerable to unauthenticated logins through the serial port/TTY interface. This vulnerability can be more critical if the serial port is connected to a serial-over-lan device. IBM X-Force ID: 217095.
CVE-2022-22495
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-24
IBM i 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 is vulnerable to SQL injection. A remote attacker could send specially crafted SQL statements, which could allow the attacker to view, add, modify or delete information in the back-end database. IBM X-Force ID: 226941.
CVE-2020-4926
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-24
A vulnerability in the Spectrum Scale 5.1 core component and IBM Elastic Storage System 6.1 could allow unauthorized access to user data or injection of arbitrary data in the communication protocol. IBM X-Force ID: 191600.
CVE-2013-10002
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-24
A vulnerability was found in Telecommunication Software SAMwin Contact Center Suite 5.1. It has been rated as critical. Affected by this issue is the function getCurrentDBVersion in the library SAMwinLIBVB.dll of the credential handler. Authentication is possible with hard-coded credentials. Upgradi...
CVE-2013-10003
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-24
A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in Telecommunication Software SAMwin Contact Center Suite 5.1. This affects the function getCurrentDBVersion in the library SAMwinLIBVB.dll of the database handler. The manipulation leads to sql injection. The exploit has been disclosed to the pu...