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.

Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
SPONSORED BY
1/11/2017
03:00 PM
Malwarebytes Labs
Malwarebytes Labs
Partner Perspectives
50%
50%

Operational Security Best Practices For Social Media

Building a firm, clear policy on disclosures online can provide a flexible, adaptive response that will protect proprietary data from winding up in a public leak.

In recent years, we’ve seen the pace of database breaches and the subsequent distribution of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) accelerate to a breakneck pace, causing significant financial and personal damage to the individuals impacted.  But what often goes unconsidered is the organizational damage that the loss of even a single email address can cause. 

One carefully considered stolen pair of credentials can offer a jumping off point for a phishing campaign that appears to come from a trusted source, an intelligence source that affords an attacker targeting data for subsequent action, or a pivot point to access other accounts that may use the same password. In fact, attackers will commonly comb through leaked databases for high value targets and resell secondary lists to those looking to use the accounts before a password reset.  A common defense against these sort of scenarios is practicing good organizational social media operational security – OPSEC - principally by keeping company data off LinkedIn, Facebook, Reddit, and the like. 

OPSEC on social media demands good communication between first-line managers, legal policy, and your Security Operations Center (SOC).  Legally, you can’t forbid your employees from using LinkedIn, but you can bar them from disclosing company assets publically, such as an organizational email.  First-line managers are responsible for implementing legal policies, but more importantly – these managers can communicate back to the OpSec team when business needs are forcing employees to circumvent security policies. 

Much more common than the malicious insider threat is the employee who can’t access data they need on the road, and decides to forward company email to a webmail service.  Another dangerous scenario is the employee who is required to disclose their company email to third parties, but doesn’t have a separate account for sensitive data. 

SOC: Your OPSEC Of Last Resort
There are generally simple, easy fixes for these issues that tend not to be implemented due to poor communication with first-line managers.  And there will always be individuals with exceptionally poor judgment, for example, those who would register for ashleymadison.com with a company email.  Bottom line, making sure security policies are aligned with business needs is a low cost measure that decision makers should be doing as a matter of course.

The SOC affords your organization with OPSEC of last resort. If a SOC tech sees company information disclosed in a public space, something has already gone wrong.  That said, a simple crawler set to look for a defined keyword or domain list on sites like Reddit or Facebook can find leaked PII fast, increasing the odds that a takedown will be more effective. 

A Tier II SOC tech can triage a leak after the fact by pinpointing the precise point of egress.  Asking for passive monitoring of PII can afford an additional layer of security for situations when policy is not sufficient.  Brand Protection services will also do this as part of a vendor relationship, although typically at significant cost. 

As with most cybersecurity issues, protecting company information on social media boils down to issues of communication.  Building firm, clear policy on disclosures online, as well as providing channels for feedback to filter upwards, can provide a flexible, adaptive response that will protect proprietary data from winding up in a public leak.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/2/2020
Ripple20 Threatens Increasingly Connected Medical Devices
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/30/2020
DDoS Attacks Jump 542% from Q4 2019 to Q1 2020
Dark Reading Staff 6/30/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-9498
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-02
Apache Guacamole 1.1.0 and older may mishandle pointers involved inprocessing data received via RDP static virtual channels. If a userconnects to a malicious or compromised RDP server, a series ofspecially-crafted PDUs could result in memory corruption, possiblyallowing arbitrary code to be executed...
CVE-2020-3282
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-02
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Unified Communications Manager, Cisco Unified Communications Manager Session Management Edition, Cisco Unified Communications Manager IM & Presence Service, and Cisco Unity Connection could allow an unauthenticated, remote attack...
CVE-2020-5909
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-02
In versions 3.0.0-3.5.0, 2.0.0-2.9.0, and 1.0.1, when users run the command displayed in NGINX Controller user interface (UI) to fetch the agent installer, the server TLS certificate is not verified.
CVE-2020-5910
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-02
In versions 3.0.0-3.5.0, 2.0.0-2.9.0, and 1.0.1, the Neural Autonomic Transport System (NATS) messaging services in use by the NGINX Controller do not require any form of authentication, so any successful connection would be authorized.
CVE-2020-5911
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-02
In versions 3.0.0-3.5.0, 2.0.0-2.9.0, and 1.0.1, the NGINX Controller installer starts the download of Kubernetes packages from an HTTP URL On Debian/Ubuntu system.