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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

Critical Infrastructure Providers Face Politically Motivated Attacks

A Symantec survey finds that half of critical infrastructure providers have experienced politically motivated attacks against their networks.

Strategic Security Survey: Global Threat, Local Pain
Strategic Security Survey: Global Threat, Local Pain
(click image for larger view and for full photo gallery)
More than half of critical infrastructure providers have experienced politically motivated attacks against their networks. That finding comes from a new survey of 1,580 private businesses in critical infrastructure industries -- defined as industries whose disruption could threaten national security -- conducted by Applied Research for Symantec.

In terms of attack frequency and financial fallout, critical infrastructure respondents said they had experienced a politically motivated attack 10 times in the past five years, resulting in about $850,000 in damages in total. Furthermore, 48% expect more of these attacks in the next year, while 80% expect the frequency of such attacks to increase.

"These numbers are perceptions -- we wanted to get their impressions about what they thought about government protection programs, their awareness and their readiness," said Mark Bregman, chief technology officer at Symantec.

But how do you define an attack as being politically motivated? "Usually, they're stealing something besides money -- often it's intellectual property, to further the competitiveness of a country, or to get into the critical infrastructure to get pre-positioned in case they later want to be ready to disrupt that infrastructure," said Bregman. Other activities may simply focus on gathering intelligence or understanding the nuances of a particular country's critical infrastructure networks.

In terms of network defenses, the energy industry thinks that it is best-prepared to defend against such attacks, while the communications industry is the least prepared. Even so, only one-third of providers feel "extremely prepared" to defend against all types of attacks, and 31% said they were "less than somewhat prepared."

Overwhelmingly, small organizations said they're ill prepared, although perhaps the upside is that they now know it. "It's only recently that small companies realize they're a target as much as big companies," said Bregman.

Interestingly, 90% of respondents reported that they've worked with a government critical infrastructure protection program, and half said they were quite involved. Two-thirds also said that they're willing to work with the government on security issues, and about the same number even view such collaborations favorably.

Such attitudes represent a marked shift from the early days of the government-promulgated critical infrastructure protection committees meant to coordinate security with private industry. Some of that change is due to Stuxnet, which almost overnight made information security a hot-button issue for critical infrastructure providers.

In addition, said Bregman, "in the U.S., the administration has been very outgoing and vocal about the importance of critical infrastructure and protecting it against cyber-attack," especially by appointing Howard Schmidt as cybersecurity coordinator, as well as through multiple speeches by President Obama and others in his administration.

Finally, rather than dictating from on high, the government is carving out a niche as a clearinghouse for useful -- and sometimes difficult to find -- security information and industry best practices. "These programs are not programs in which the government is providing the solution," said Bregman.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/4/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
Cybersecurity Spending Hits 'Temporary Pause' Amid Pandemic
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  6/2/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
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-2020-13817
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
ntpd in ntp before 4.2.8p14 and 4.3.x before 4.3.100 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon exit or system time change) by predicting transmit timestamps for use in spoofed packets. The victim must be relying on unauthenticated IPv4 time sources. There must be an off-path attac...
CVE-2020-13818
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
In Zoho ManageEngine OpManager before 125144, when <cachestart> is used, directory traversal validation can be bypassed.
CVE-2020-6640
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
An improper neutralization of input vulnerability in the Admin Profile of FortiAnalyzer may allow a remote authenticated attacker to perform a stored cross site scripting attack (XSS) via the Description Area.
CVE-2020-9292
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
An unquoted service path vulnerability in the FortiSIEM Windows Agent component may allow an attacker to gain elevated privileges via the AoWinAgt executable service path.
CVE-2019-16150
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-04
Use of a hard-coded cryptographic key to encrypt security sensitive data in local storage and configuration in FortiClient for Windows prior to 6.4.0 may allow an attacker with access to the local storage or the configuration backup file to decrypt the sensitive data via knowledge of the hard-coded ...