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
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
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.  
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? 


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
Creating an Effective Incident Response Plan
Security teams are realizing their organizations will experience a cyber incident at some point. An effective incident response plan that takes into account their specific requirements and has been tested is critical. This issue of Tech Insights also includes: -a look at the newly signed cyber-incident law, -how organizations can apply behavioral psychology to incident response, -and an overview of the Open Cybersecurity Schema Framework.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-4194
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-30
Use after free in Accessibility in Google Chrome prior to 108.0.5359.71 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
CVE-2022-4195
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-30
Insufficient policy enforcement in Safe Browsing in Google Chrome prior to 108.0.5359.71 allowed a remote attacker to bypass Safe Browsing warnings via a malicious file. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
CVE-2022-4175
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-30
Use after free in Camera Capture in Google Chrome prior to 108.0.5359.71 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)
CVE-2022-4176
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-30
Out of bounds write in Lacros Graphics in Google Chrome on Chrome OS and Lacros prior to 108.0.5359.71 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI interactions to potentially exploit heap corruption via UI interactions. (Chromium security severity: High)
CVE-2022-4177
PUBLISHED: 2022-11-30
Use after free in Extensions in Google Chrome prior to 108.0.5359.71 allowed an attacker who convinced a user to install an extension to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted Chrome Extension and UI interaction. (Chromium security severity: High)