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
Target Breach: Phishing Attack Implicated
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
awinter015
50%
50%
awinter015,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/11/2014 | 10:32:47 AM
Re: Target Data Breach - Fazio
agreed - but even if the HVAC company was given RDP access to use PM & Billing SW - there is no reason that they should have had access to anything other than what they required.  Even within SMB accounting software (Qucikbooks) you can restrict access to functions or files - so that could be one level of security. Another option could have been to provide them their own systems for them to use.

Even as a small IT Service company we have to go through PCI compliance.  Are these big companies too big that they dont have anyone who can see the big picutre?  Do they perform 3rd party security audits?  If so - why wasnt this found.  If not - wow - they hold millions of credit card numbers and probably lots of Personal Information which must be protected - and they did nothing to think about security?  Wow!
Dave122066
50%
50%
Dave122066,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/3/2014 | 4:42:58 PM
Target Data Breach - Fazio
For all that I have read here,  I have not heard anyone mention that Target may have given Fazio access to an RDP server to run necessary applications for billing and PM.  It sounds too easy, but definitley plausible.  In this case once the Fazio machine(s) was comprimised with maybe a key logger, the hackers identified the "link" when sifting thorugh their catch.  At that point the liability is on Target for allowing systems used for POS, etc to be exposed and vulnerable to systems that are external/clinet/contractor facing.  Fazio owns part of this, but Target has a the bulk of the responsiblity.

Could they have targeted Target exclusivley... YES.  There is tons of public info about contracts and... they also placed info on a public facing server / webpage.  Its my opinion that this is going to get real real messy for Fazio.  Target may recover, but will never be the same.  This on is just too big.
WKash
50%
50%
WKash,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/18/2014 | 4:09:10 PM
Re: Thanks for updating
rradina, you raise some interesting possibilities here.  I don't have enough information to comment on them, but one thing's for sure, it would be a great service to the community if forensics investigators shared what they learned and what steps companies should take, and should have taken.  True hackers will just find another way to exploit the IT ecosystem. But if companies do more to take a "neighborhood watch" approach, rather than minding their own "house's" security, hackers at least might look elswhere. 
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/18/2014 | 2:53:19 PM
Re: Thanks for updating
I missed that.  However, that raises new concerns.  If by "data connection", they mean some kind of private link with Target so they can perform these duties, it's not difficult to envision lax firewall rules or an unpatched "Intranet" server that was vulnerable.  Hackers owned Fazio's PC(s) so they could attack any system Fazio was capable of reaching through that data link.  Billing and project management servers are probably "Intranet" servers. They could have easily been running a dated and unsupported version of Windows because the software suite was not compatible with later versions.  Once compromised, it was behind the firewall on a VLAN that probably had broad access to many corporate data center resources (backup servers, file servers, database servers, etc.).  From there they could have hacked any number of systems until they found one that could talk to the retail POS systems.
WKash
50%
50%
WKash,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/18/2014 | 12:19:48 PM
Re: Thanks for updating
The point was, it does not appear that the hackers got to Target through the HVAC control systems, but rather...the contractor's access to Target's network was limited to business-related administrative purposes. As he was quoted here: "Our data connection with Target was exclusively for electronic billing, contract submission, and project management, and Target is the only customer for whom we manage these processes on a remote basis. No other [Fazio] customers have been affected by the breach."

How the hackers used that information to get to the credit card files is an important questions, still to be determined.

 
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
2/18/2014 | 12:20:40 AM
PaulS681
50%
50%
PaulS681,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/15/2014 | 4:49:22 PM
Re: Random or targeted
 

I have to think this was not random. At least to the point that they knew they were going to get into more by hacking Fazio. They must have known they had contracts with Target and others. What else did they hack and maybe no one has discovered it yet?
PaulS681
50%
50%
PaulS681,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/15/2014 | 4:42:28 PM
Who will be made responsible?
This will be interesting to see if the HVAC contractors are found to be liable in any way. I'm sure their security will be looked at closely.

 
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/15/2014 | 11:09:12 AM
Re: Thanks for updating
"What's still not clear, however, is how attackers might have parlayed Fazio's access credentials for Target's electronic billing, contracts, or project management system into full-blown access to the retailer's IT network and payment processing systems."

From the statement above, how do we know it was the accounting system? The quote is a "theory" because it uses the terms "might have".  Am I missing another story?

Until someone comes clean with incredible detail, we're all throwing mud at the wall. Granted, the more that comes out the closer our mud gets but we're still just guessing.  We don't even know if the credentials stolen via Fazio were instrumental before or after an initial breach.  We may never know unless we catch the perpetrators and they spill the beans.
WKash
50%
50%
WKash,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/14/2014 | 5:53:39 PM
Thanks for updating
Thanks for continuing to follow this story and set the record straight about the HVAC contractor implicated in the Target breach.  In particular: For making it clear, based on what now seems to be known, that the hackers used an accounting system, not the HVAC system to break in and that the contractor likely was unwittingly caught in a very large phish net. As the number of companies granting network exchange privileges to one another continues to grow, so will the collateral damage as hackers continue to perfect their skills.

 
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


News
Former CISA Director Chris Krebs Discusses Risk Management & Threat Intel
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/23/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
Security + Fraud Protection: Your One-Two Punch Against Cyberattacks
Joshua Goldfarb, Director of Product Management at F5,  2/23/2021
News
Cybercrime Groups More Prolific, Focus on Healthcare in 2020
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/22/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Building the SOC of the Future
Building the SOC of the Future
Digital transformation, cloud-focused attacks, and a worldwide pandemic. The past year has changed the way business works and the way security teams operate. There is no going back.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-27225
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-01
In Dataiku DSS before 8.0.6, insufficient access control in the Jupyter notebooks integration allows users (who have coding permissions) to read and overwrite notebooks in projects that they are not authorized to access.
CVE-2021-27132
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-27
SerComm AG Combo VD625 AGSOT_2.1.0 devices allow CRLF injection (for HTTP header injection) in the download function via the Content-Disposition header.
CVE-2021-25284
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-27
An issue was discovered in through SaltStack Salt before 3002.5. salt.modules.cmdmod can log credentials to the info or error log level.
CVE-2021-3144
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-27
In SaltStack Salt before 3002.5, eauth tokens can be used once after expiration. (They might be used to run command against the salt master or minions.)
CVE-2021-3148
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-27
An issue was discovered in SaltStack Salt before 3002.5. Sending crafted web requests to the Salt API can result in salt.utils.thin.gen_thin() command injection because of different handling of single versus double quotes. This is related to salt/utils/thin.py.