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
50%
50%
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
50%
50%
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
50%
50%
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
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-35477
PUBLISHED: 2021-08-02
In the Linux kernel through 5.13.7, an unprivileged BPF program can obtain sensitive information from kernel memory via a Speculative Store Bypass side-channel attack because a certain preempting store operation does not necessarily occur before a store operation that has an attacker-controlled valu...
CVE-2017-18113
PUBLISHED: 2021-08-02
The DefaultOSWorkflowConfigurator class in Jira Server and Jira Data Center before version 8.18.1 allows remote attackers who can trick a system administrator to import their malicious workflow to execute arbitrary code via a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability. The vulnerability allowed for v...
CVE-2021-32066
PUBLISHED: 2021-08-01
An issue was discovered in Ruby through 2.6.7, 2.7.x through 2.7.3, and 3.x through 3.0.1. Net::IMAP does not raise an exception when StartTLS fails with an an unknown response, which might allow man-in-the-middle attackers to bypass the TLS protections by leveraging a network position between the c...
CVE-2021-37759
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-31
A Session ID leak in the DEBUG log file in Graylog before 4.1.2 allows attackers to escalate privileges (to the access level of the leaked session ID).
CVE-2021-37760
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-31
A Session ID leak in the audit log in Graylog before 4.1.2 allows attackers to escalate privileges (to the access level of the leaked session ID).