Category Archives: Cyber Security

Cyberfraud & Data Breaches May 2018 Training Event

On May 16th and 17th, our Chapter, supported by our partners national, ACFE and the Virginia State Police, will present our sixteenth Spring training event, this time on the subject of CYBERFRAUD AND DATA BREACHES.  Our presenter will be CARY E. MOORE, CFE, CISSP, MBA; ACFE Presenter Board member and internationally renowned author and authority on every aspect of cybercrime.  CLICK HERE  to see an outline of the training, the agenda and Cary’s bio.  If you decide to do so, you may REGISTER HERE.  Attendees will receive 16 CPE credits, and a printed manual of over 300 pages detailing every subject covered in the training.  In addition, as a door prize, we will be awarding, by drawing, a printed copy of the 2017 Fraud Examiners Manual, a $200 value!

As the relentless wave of cyberattacks continues, all our client organizations are under intense pressure from key stakeholders and regulators to implement and enhance their anti-fraud programs to protect customers, employees and the valuable information in their possession. According to research from IBM Security and the Ponemon Institute, the average total cost per company, per event of a data breach is US $3.62 million. Initial damage estimates of a single breach, while often staggering, may not consider less obvious and often undetectable threats such as theft of intellectual property, espionage, destruction of data, attacks on core operations or attempts to disable critical infrastructure. These knock-on effects can last for years and have devastating financial, operational and brand ramifications.

Given the broad regulatory pressures to tighten anti-fraud cyber security controls and the visibility surrounding cyber risk, a number of proposed regulations focused on improving cyber security risk management programs have been introduced in the United States over the past few years by various governing bodies of which CFEs need to be aware. One of the more prominent is a regulation issued by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) that prescribes certain minimum cyber security standards for those entities regulated by the NYDFS. Based on the entity’s risk assessment, the NYDFS law has specific requirements around data encryption, protection and retention, third party information security, application security, incident response and breach. notification, board reporting, and annual certifications.

However, organizations continue to struggle to report on the overall effectiveness of their cyber security risk management and anti-fraud programs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has released a cyber security risk management reporting framework intended to help organizations expand cyber risk reporting to a broad range of internal and external users, including the C-suite and the board of directors (BoD). The AICPA’s reporting framework is designed to address the need for greater stakeholder transparency by providing in-depth, easily consumable information about an organization’s cyber risk management
program. The cyber security risk management examination uses an independent, objective reporting approach and employs broader and more flexible criteria. For example, it allows for the selection and utilization of any control framework considered suitable and available in establishing the entity’s cyber security objectives and developing and maintaining controls within the entity’s cyber security risk management program, whether it is the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)’s Cybersecurity Framework, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)’s ISO 27001/2 and related frameworks, or internally developed frameworks based on a combination of sources. The examination is voluntary, and applies to all types of entities, but should be considered a leading practice that provides the C-suite, boards and other key stakeholders clear insight into an organization’s cyber security program and identifies gaps or pitfalls that leave organizations vulnerable.

Cyber security risk management examination reports are vital to the fraud control program of any organization doing business on-line.  Such reports help an organization’s BoD establish appropriate oversight of a company’s cyber security risk program and credibly communicate its effectiveness to stakeholders, including investors, analysts, customers, business partners and regulators. By leveraging this information, boards can challenge management’s assertions around the effectiveness of their cyber risk management programs and drive more effective decision making. Active involvement and oversight from the BoD can help ensure that an organization is paying adequate attention to cyber risk management. The board can help shape expectations for reporting on cyber threats and fraud attempts while also advocating for greater transparency and assurance around the effectiveness of the program.

Organizations that choose to utilize the AICPA’s cyber security attestation reporting framework and perform an examination of their cyber security program may be better positioned to gain competitive advantage and enhance their brand in the marketplace. For example, an outsource retail service provider (OSP) that can provide evidence that a well-developed and sound cyber security risk management program is in place in its organization can proactively provide the report to current and potential customers, evidencing that it has implemented appropriate controls to protect the sensitive IT assets and valuable data over which it maintains access. At the same time, current and potential retailor customers of an OSP want the third parties with whom they engage to also place a high level of importance on cyber security. Requiring a cyber security examination report as part of the selection criteria would offer transparency into
outsourcers’ cyber security programs and could be a determining factor in the selection process.

The value of addressing cyber security related fraud concerns and questions by CFEs before regulatory mandates are established or a crisis occurs is quite clear. The knowledgeable CFE can help our client organizations view the new cyber security attestation reporting frameworks as an opportunity to enhance their existing cyber security and anti-fraud programs and gain competitive advantage. The attestation reporting frameworks address the needs of a variety of key stakeholder groups and, in turn, limit the communication and compliance burden. CFE client organizations that view the cyber security reporting landscape as an opportunity can use it to lead, navigate and disrupt in today’s rapidly evolving cyber risk environment.

Please decide to join us for our May Training Event on this vital and timely topic!  YOU MAY REGISTER 0N-LINE HERE.  You can pay with PayPal (you don’t need a PayPal account; you can use any credit card) or just print an invoice and submit your payment by snail mail!

The Anti-Fraud Blockchain

Blockchain technology, the series of interlocking algorithms powering digital currencies like BitCoin, is emerging as a potent fraud prevention tool.  As every CFE knows, technology is enabling new forms of money and contracting, and the growing digital economy holds great promise to provide a full range of new financial tools, especially to the world’s poor and unbanked. These emerging virtual currencies and financial techniques are often anonymous, and none have received quite as much press as Bitcoin, the decentralized peer-to-peer digital form of money.

Bitcoins were invented in 2009 by a mysterious person (or group of people) using the alias Satoshi Nakamoto, and the coins are created or “mined” by solving increasingly difficult mathematical equations, requiring extensive computing power. The system is designed to ensure no more than twenty-one million Bitcoins are ever generated, thereby preventing a central authority from flooding the market with new Bitcoins. Most people purchase Bitcoins on third-party exchanges with traditional currencies, such as dollars or euros, or with credit cards. The exchange rates against the dollar for Bitcoin fluctuate wildly and have ranged from fifty cents per coin around the time of its introduction to over $16,0000 in December 2017. People can send Bitcoins, or percentages of bitcoin, to each other using computers or mobile apps, where coins are stored in digital wallets. Bitcoins can be directly exchanged between users anywhere in the world using unique alphanumeric identifiers, akin to e-mail addresses, and there are no transaction fees in the basic system, absent intermediaries.

Anytime a purchase takes place, it is recorded in a public ledger known as the blockchain, which ensures no duplicate transactions are permitted. Crypto currencies are called such because they use cryptography to regulate the creation and transfer of money, rather than relying on central authorities. Bitcoin acceptance continues to grow rapidly, and it is possible to use Bitcoins to buy cupcakes in San Francisco, cocktails in Manhattan, and a Subway sandwich in Allentown.

Because Bitcoin can be spent online without the need for a bank account and no ID is required to buy and sell the crypto currency, it provides a convenient system for anonymous, or more precisely pseudonymous, transactions, where a user’s true name is hidden. Though Bitcoin, like all forms of money, can be used for both legal and illegal purposes, its encryption techniques and relative anonymity make it strongly attractive to fraudsters and criminals of all kinds. Because funds are not stored in a central location, accounts cannot readily be seized or frozen by police, and tracing the transactions recorded in the blockchain is significantly more complex than serving a subpoena on a local bank operating within traditionally regulated financial networks. As a result, nearly all the so-called Dark Web’s illicit commerce is facilitated through alternative currency systems. People do not send paper checks or use credit cards in their own names to buy meth and pornography. Rather, they turn to anonymous digital and virtual forms of money such as Bitcoin.

A blockchain is, essentially, a way of moving information between parties over the Internet and storing that information and its transaction history on a disparate network of computers. Bitcoin, and all the other digital currencies, operates on a blockchain: as transactions are aggregated into blocks, each block is assigned a unique cryptographic signature called a “hash.” Once the validating cryptographic puzzle for the latest block has been solved by a coin mining computer, three things happen: the result is time-stamped, the new block is linked irrevocably to the blocks before and after it by its unique hash, and the block and its hash are posted to all the other computers that were attempting to solve the puzzle involved in the mining process for new coins. This decentralized network of computers is the repository of the immutable ledger of bitcoin transactions.  If you wanted to steal a bitcoin, you’d have to rewrite the coin’s entire history on the blockchain in broad daylight.

While bitcoin and other digital currencies operate on a blockchain, they are not the blockchain itself. It’s an insight of many computer scientists that in addition to exchanging digital money, the blockchain can be used to facilitate transactions of other kinds of digitized data, such as property registrations, birth certificates, medical records, and bills of lading. Because the blockchain is decentralized and its ledger immutable, all these types of transactions would be protected from hacking; and because the blockchain is a peer-to-peer system that lets people and businesses interact directly with each other, it is inherently more efficient and  cheaper than current systems that are burdened with middlemen such as lawyers and regulators.

A CFE’s client company that aims to reduce drug counterfeiting could have its CFE investigator use the blockchain to follow pharmaceuticals from provenance to purchase. Another could use it to do something similar with high-end sneakers. Yet another, a medical marijuana producer, could create a blockchain that registers everything that has happened to a cannabis product, from seed to sale, letting consumers, retailers and government regulators know where everything came from and where it went. The same thing can be done with any normal crop so, in the same way that a consumer would want to know where the corn on her table came from, or the apple that she had at lunch originated, all stake holders involved in the medical marijuana enterprise would know where any batch of product originated and who touched it all along the way.

While a blockchain is not a full-on solution to fraud or hacking, its decentralized infrastructure ensures that there are no “honeypots” of data available, like financial or medical records on isolated company servers, for criminals to exploit. Still, touting a bitcoin-derived technology as an answer to cybercrime may seem a stretch considering the high-profile, and lucrative, thefts of cryptocurrency over the past few years. Its estimated that as of March 2015, a full third of  all Bitcoin exchanges, (where people store their bitcoin), up to then had been hacked, and nearly half had closed. There was, most famously, the 2014 pilferage of Mt. Gox, a Japanese based digital coin exchange, in which 850,000 bitcoins worth $460,000,000 disappeared. Two years later another exchange, Bitfinex, was hacked and around $60 million in bitcoin was taken; the company’s solution was to spread the loss to all its customers, including those whose accounts had not been drained.

Unlike money kept in a bank, cryptocurrencies are uninsured and unregulated. That is one of the consequences of a monetary system that exists, intentionally, beyond government control or oversight. It may be small consolation to those who were affected by these thefts that the bitcoin network itself and the blockchain has never been breached, which perhaps proves the immunity of the blockchain to hacking.

This security of the blockchain itself demonstrates how smart contracts can be written and stored on it. These are covenants, written in code, that specify the terms of an agreement. They are smart because as soon as its terms are met, the contract executes automatically, without human intervention. Once triggered, it can’t be amended, tampered with, or impeded. This is programmable money. Such smart contracts are a tool with the potential to change how business in done. The concept, as with digital currencies, is based on computers synced together. Now imagine that rather than syncing a transaction, software is synced. Every machine in the network runs the same small program. It could be something simple, like a loan: A sends B some money, and B’s account automatically pays it back, with interest, a few days later. All parties agree to these terms, and it’s locked in using the smart contract. The parties have achieved programmable money!

There is no doubt that smart contracts and the blockchain itself will augment the trend toward automation, though it is automation through lines of code, not robotics. For businesses looking to cut costs and reduce fraud, this is one of the main attractions of blockchain technology. The challenge is that, if contracts are automated, what will happen to traditional firm control structures, processes, and intermediaries like lawyers and accountants? And what about managers? Their roles would all radically change. Most blockchain advocates imagine them changing so radically as to disappear altogether, taking with them many of the costs currently associated with doing business. According to a recent report in the trade press, the blockchain could reduce banks’ infrastructure costs attributable to cross-border payments, securities trading, and regulatory compliance by $15-20 billion per annum by 2022.  Whereas most technologies tend to automate workers on the periphery, blockchain automates away the center. Instead of putting the taxi driver out of a job, blockchain puts Uber out of a job and lets the taxi drivers work with the customer directly.

Whether blockchain technology will be a revolution for good or one that continues what has come to seem technology’s inexorable, crushing ascendance will be determined not only by where it is deployed, but how. The blockchain could be used by NGOs to eliminate corruption in the distribution of foreign aid by enabling funds to move directly from giver to receiver. It is also a way for banks to operate without external oversight, encouraging other kinds of corruption. Either way, we as CFEs would be wise to remember that technology is never neutral. It is always endowed with the values of its creators. In the case of the blockchain and crypto-currency, those values are libertarian and mechanistic; trust resides in algorithmic rules, while the rules of the state and other regulatory bodies are often viewed with suspicion and hostility.

Threat Assessment & Cyber Security

One rainy Richmond evening last week I attended the monthly dinner meeting of one of the professional organizations of which I’m a member.  Our guest speaker’s presentation was outstanding and, in my opinion, well worth sharing with fellow CFE’s especially as we find more and more of our client’s grappling with the reality of  ever-evolving cyber threats.

Our speaker started by indicating that, according to a wide spectrum of current thinking, technology issues in isolation should be but one facet of the overall cyber defense strategy of any enterprise. A holistic view on people, process and technology is required in any organization that wants to make its chosen defense strategy successful and, to be most successful, that strategy needs to be supplemented with a good dose of common sense creative thinking. That creative thinking proved to be the main subject of her talk.

Ironically, the sheer size, complexity and geopolitical diversity of the modern-day enterprise can constitute an inherent obstacle for its goal of achieving business objectives in a secured environment.  The source of the problem is not simply the cyber threats themselves, but threat agents. The term “threat agent,” from the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP), is used to indicate an individual or group that can manifest a threat. Threat agents are represented by the phenomena of:

–Hacktivism;
–Corporate Espionage;
–Government Actors;
–Terrorists;
–Common Criminals (individual and organized).

Irrespective of the type of threat, the threat agent takes advantage of an identified vulnerability and exploits it in the attempt to negatively impact the value the individual business has at risk. The attempt to execute the threat in combination with the vulnerability is called hacking. When this attempt is successful, and the threat agent can negatively impact the value at risk, it can be concluded that the vulnerability was successfully exploited. So, essentially, enterprises are trying to defend against hacking and, more importantly, against the threat agent that is the hacker in his or her many guises. The ACFE identifies hacking as the single activity that has resulted in the greatest number of cyber breaches in the past decade.

While there is no one-size-fits-all standard to build and run a sustainable security defense in a generic enterprise context, most companies currently deploy something resembling the individual components of the following general framework:

–Business Drivers and Objectives;
–A Risk Strategy;
–Policies and Standards;
–Risk Identification and Asset Profiling;
–People, Process, Technology;
–Security Operations and Capabilities;
–Compliance Monitoring and Reporting.

Most IT risk and security professionals would be able to identify this framework and agree with the assertion that it’s a sustainable approach to managing an enterprise’s security landscape. Our speaker pointed out, however, that in her opinion, if the current framework were indeed working as intended, the number of security incidents would be expected to show a downward trend as most threats would fail to manifest into full-blown incidents. They could then be routinely identified by enterprises as known security problems and dealt with by the procedures operative in day-to-day security operations. Unfortunately for the existing framework, however, recent security surveys conducted by numerous organizations and trade groups clearly show an upward trend of rising security incidents and breaches (as every reader of daily press reports well knows).

The rising tide of security incidents and breaches is not surprising since the trade press also reports an average of 35 new, major security failures on each and every day of the year.  Couple this fact with the ease of execution and ready availability of exploit kits on the Dark Web and the threat grows in both probability of exploitation and magnitude of impact. With speed and intensity, each threat strikes the security structure of an enterprise and whittles away at its management credibility to deal with the threat under the routine, daily operational regimen presently defined. Hence, most affected enterprises endure a growing trend of negative security incidents experienced and reported.

During the last several years, in response to all this, many firms have responded by experimenting with a new approach to the existing paradigm. These organizations have implemented emergency response teams to respond to cyber-threats and incidents. These teams are a novel addition to the existing control structure and have two main functions: real-time response to security incidents and the collection of concurrent internal and external security intelligence to feed predictive analysis. Being able to respond to security incidents via a dedicated response team boosts the capacity of the operational organization to contain and recover from attacks. Responding to incidents, however efficiently, is, in any case, a reactive approach to deal with cyber-threats but isn’t the whole story. This is where cyber-threat intelligence comes into play. Threat intelligence is a more proactive means of enabling an organization to predict incidents. However, this approach also has a downside. The influx of a great deal of intelligence information may limit the ability of the company to render it actionable on a timely basis.

Cyber threat assessments are an effective means to tame what can be this overwhelming influx of intelligence information. Cyber threat assessment is currently recognized in the industry as red teaming, which is the practice of viewing a problem from an adversary or competitor’s perspective. As part of an IT security strategy, enterprises can use red teams to test the effectiveness of the security structure as a whole and to provide a relevance factor to the intelligence feeds on cyber threats. This can help CEOs decide what threats are relevant and have higher exposure levels compared to others. The evolution of cyber threat response, cyber threat
intelligence and cyber threat assessment (red teams) in conjunction with the existing IT risk framework can be used as an effective strategy to counter the agility of evolving cyber threats. The cyber threat assessment process assesses and challenges the structure of existing enterprise security systems, including designs, operational-level controls and the overall cyber threat response and intelligence process to ensure they remain capable of defending against current relevant exploits.

Cyber threat assessment exercises can also be extremely helpful in highlighting the most relevant attacks and in quantifying their potential impacts. The word “adversary” in the definition of the term ‘red team’ is key in that it emphasizes the need to independently challenge the security structure from the view point of an attacker.  Red team exercises should be designed to be independent of the scope, asset profiling, security, IT operations and coverage of existing security policies. Only then can enterprises realistically apply the attacker’s perspective, measure the success of its risk strategy and see how it performs when challenged. It’s essential that red team exercises have the freedom to treat the complete security structure and to point to flaws in all components of the IT risk framework. It’s a common notion that a red team exercise is a penetration test. This is not the case. Use of penetration test techniques by red teams is a means to identify the information required to replicate cyber threats and to create a controlled security incident. The technical shortfalls that are identified during standard penetration testing are mere symptoms of gaps that may exist in the governance of people, processes and technology. Hence, to make the organization more resilient against cyber threats, red team focus should be kept on addressing the root cause and not merely on fixing the security flaws discovered during the exercise. Another key point is to include cyber threat response and threat monitoring in the scope of such assessments. This demands that red team exercises be executed, and partially announced, with CEO-level approval. This ensures that enterprises challenge the end-to-end capabilities of an enterprise to cope with a real-time security incident. Lessons learned from red teaming can be documented to improve the overall security posture of the organization and as an aid in dealing with future threats.

Our speaker concluded by saying that as cyber threats evolve, one-hundred percent security for an active business is impossible to achieve. Business is about making optimum use of existing resources to derive the desired value for stakeholders. Cyber-defense cannot be an exception to this rule. To achieve optimized use of their security investments, CEOs should ensure that security spending for their organization is mapped to the real emerging cyber threat landscape. Red teaming is an effective tool to challenge the status quo of an enterprise’s security framework and to make informed judgements about the actual condition of its actual security posture today. Not only can the judgements resulting from red team exercises be used to improve cyber threat defense, they can also prove an effective mechanism to guide a higher return on cyber-defense investment.

A CDC for Cyber

I remember reading somewhere a few years back that Microsoft had commissioned a report which recommended that the U.S. government set up an entity akin to its Center for Disease Control but for cyber security.  An intriguing idea.  The trade press talks about malware and computer viruses and infections to describe self -replicating malicious code in the same way doctors talk about metastasizing cancers or the flu; likewise, as with public health, rather than focusing on prevention and detection, we often blame those who have become infected and try to retrospectively arrest/prosecute (cure) those responsible (the cancer cells, hackers) long after the original harm is done. Regarding cyber, what if we extended this paradigm and instead viewed global cyber security as an exercise in public health?

As I recall, the report pointed out that organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta and the World Health Organization in Geneva have over decades developed robust systems and objective methodologies for identifying and responding to public health threats; structures and frameworks that are far more developed than those existent in today’s cyber-security community. Given the many parallels between communicable human diseases and those affecting today’s technologies, there is also much fraud examiners and security professionals can learn from the public health model, an adaptable system capable of responding to an ever-changing array of pathogens around the world.

With cyber as with matters of public health, individual actions can only go so far. It’s great if an individual has excellent techniques of personal hygiene, but if everyone in that person’s town has the flu, eventually that individual will probably succumb as well. The comparison is relevant to the world of cyber threats. Individual responsibility and action can make an enormous difference in cyber security, but ultimately the only hope we have as a nation in responding to rapidly propagating threats across this planetary matrix of interconnected technologies is to construct new institutions to coordinate our response. A trusted, international cyber World Health Organization could foster cooperation and collaboration across companies, countries, and government agencies, a crucial step required to improve the overall public health of the networks driving the critical infrastructures in both our online and our off-line worlds.

Such a proposed cyber CDC could go a long way toward counteracting the technological risks our country faces today and could serve a critical role in improving the overall public health of the networks driving the critical infrastructures of our world. A cyber CDC could fulfill many roles that are carried out today only on an ad hoc basis, if at all, including:

• Education — providing members of the public with proven methods of cyber hygiene to protect themselves;
• Network monitoring — detection of infection and outbreaks of malware in cyberspace;
• Epidemiology — using public health methodologies to study digital cyber disease propagation and provide guidance on response and remediation;
• Immunization — helping to ‘vaccinate’ companies and the public against known threats through software patches and system updates;
• Incident response — dispatching experts as required and coordinating national and global efforts to isolate the sources of online infection and treat those affected.

While there are many organizations, both governmental and non-governmental, that focus on the above tasks, no single entity owns them all. It is through these gaps in effort and coordination that cyber risks continue to mount. An epidemiological approach to our growing technological risks is required to get to the source of malware infections, as was the case in the fight against malaria. For decades, all medical efforts focused in vain on treating the disease in those already infected. But it wasn’t until epidemiologists realized the malady was spread by mosquitoes breeding in still pools of water that genuine progress was made in the fight against the disease. By draining the pools where mosquitoes and their larvae grow, epidemiologists deprived them of an important breeding ground, thus reducing the spread of malaria. What stagnant pools can we drain in cyberspace to achieve a comparable result? The answer represents the yet unanswered challenge.

There is another major challenge a cyber CDC would face: most of those who are sick have no idea they are walking around infected, spreading disease to others. Whereas malaria patients develop fever, sweats, nausea, and difficulty breathing, important symptoms of their illness, infected computer users may be completely asymptomatic. This significant difference is evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of those with infected devices have no idea there is malware on their machines nor that they might have even joined a botnet army. Even in the corporate world, with the average time to detection of a network breach now at 210 days, most companies have no idea their most prized assets, whether intellectual property or a factory’s machinery, have been compromised. The only thing worse than being hacked is being hacked and not knowing about it. If you don’t know you’re sick, how can you possibly get treatment? Moreover, how can we prevent digital disease propagation if carriers of these maladies don’t realize they are infecting others?

Addressing these issues could be a key area of import for any proposed cyber CDC and fundamental to future communal safety and that of critical information infrastructures. Cyber-security researchers have pointed out the obvious Achilles’ heel of the modern technology infused world, the fact that today everything is either run by computers (or will be) and that everything is reliant on these computers continuing to work. The challenge is that we must have some way of continuing to work even if all the computers fail. Were our information systems to crash on a mass scale, there would be no trading on financial markets, no taking money from ATMs, no telephone network, and no pumping gas. If these core building blocks of our society were to suddenly give way, what would humanity’s backup plan be? The answer is simply, we don’t now have one.

Complicating all this from a law enforcement and fraud investigation perspective is that black hats generally benefit from technology long before defenders and investigators ever do. The successful ones have nearly unlimited budgets and don’t have to deal with internal bureaucracies, approval processes, or legal constraints. But there are other systemic issues that give criminals the upper hand, particularly around jurisdiction and international law. In a matter of minutes, the perpetrator of an online crime can virtually visit six different countries, hopping from server to server and continent to continent in an instant. But what about the police who must follow the digital evidence trail to investigate the matter?  As with all government activities, policies, and procedures, regulations must be followed. Trans-border cyber-attacks raise serious jurisdictional issues, not just for an individual police department, but for the entire institution of policing as currently formulated. A cop in Baltimore has no authority to compel an ISP in Paris to provide evidence, nor can he make an arrest on the right bank. That can only be done by request, government to government, often via mutual legal assistance treaties. The abysmally slow pace of international law means it commonly takes years for police to get evidence from overseas (years in a world in which digital evidence can be destroyed in seconds). Worse, most countries still do not even have cyber-crime laws on the books, meaning that criminals can act with impunity making response through a coordinating entity like a cyber-CDC more valuable to the U.S. specifically and to the world in general.

Experts have pointed out that we’re engaged in a technological arms race, an arms race between people who are using technology for good and those who are using it for ill. The challenge is that nefarious uses of technology are scaling exponentially in ways that our current systems of protection have simply not matched.  The point is, if we are to survive the progress offered by our technologies and enjoy their benefits, we must first develop adaptive mechanisms of security that can match or exceed the exponential pace of the threats confronting us. On this most important of imperatives, there is unambiguously no time to lose.

Help for the Little Guy

It’s clear to the news media and to every aware assurance professional that today’s cybercriminals are more sophisticated than ever in their operations and attacks. They’re always on the lookout for innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities in every global payment system and in the cloud.

According to the ACFE, more consumer records were compromised in 2015-16 than in the previous four years combined. Data breach statistics from this year (2017) are projected to be even grimmer due to the growth of increasingly sophisticated attack methods such as increasingly complex malware infections and system vulnerability exploits, which grew tenfold in 2016. With attacks coming in many different forms and from many different channels, consumers, businesses and financial institutions (often against their will) are being forced to gain a better understanding of how criminals operate, especially in ubiquitous channels like social networks. They then have a better chance of mitigating the risks and recognizing attacks before they do severe damage.

As your Chapter has pointed out over the years in this blog, understanding the mechanics of data theft and the conversion process of stolen data into cash can help organizations of all types better anticipate in the exact ways criminals may exploit the system, so that organizations can put appropriate preventive measures in place. Classic examples of such criminal activity include masquerading as a trustworthy entity such as a bank or credit card company. These phishers send e-mails and instant messages that prompt users to reply with sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details, or to enter the information at a rogue web site. Other similar techniques include using text messaging (SMSishing or smishing) or voice mail (vishing) or today’s flood of offshore spam calls to lure victims into giving up sensitive information. Whaling is phishing targeted at high-worth accounts or individuals, often identified through social networking sites such as LinkedIn or Facebook. While it’s impossible to anticipate or prevent every attack, one way to stay a step ahead of these criminals is to have a thorough understanding of how such fraudsters operate their enterprises.

Although most cyber breaches reported recently in the news have struck large companies such as Equifax and Yahoo, the ACFE tells us that small and mid-sized businesses suffer a far greater number of devastating cyber incidents. These breaches involve organizations of every industry type; all that’s required for vulnerability is that they operate network servers attached to the internet. Although the number of breached records a small to medium sized business controls is in the hundreds or thousands, rather than in the millions, the cost of these breaches can be higher for the small business because it may not be able to effectively address such incidents on its own.  Many small businesses have limited or no resources committed to cybersecurity, and many don’t employ any assurance professionals apart from the small accounting firms performing their annual financial audit. For these organizations, the key questions are “Where should we focus when it comes to cybersecurity?” and “What are the minimum controls we must have to protect the sensitive information in our custody?” Fraud Examiners and forensic accountants with client attorneys assisting small businesses can assist in answering these questions by checking that their client attorney’s organizations implement a few vital cybersecurity controls.

First, regardless of their industry, small businesses must ensure their network perimeter is protected. The first step is identifying the vulnerabilities by performing an external network scan at least quarterly. A small business can either hire an outside company to perform these scans, or, if they have small in-house or contracted IT, they can license off-the-shelf software to run the scans, themselves. Moreover, small businesses need a process in place to remedy the identified critical, high, and medium vulnerabilities within three months of the scan run date, while low vulnerabilities are less of a priority. The fewer vulnerabilities the perimeter network has,
the less chance that an external hacker will breach the organization’s network.

Educating employees about their cybersecurity responsibilities is not a simple check-sheet matter. Smaller businesses not only need help in implementing an effective information security policy, they also need to ensure employees are aware of the policy and of their responsibilities. The policy and training should cover:

–Awareness of phishing attacks;
–Training on ransomware management;
–Travel tips;
–Potential threats of social engineering;
–Password protection;
–Risks of storing sensitive data in the cloud;
–Accessing corporate information from home computers and other personal devices;
–Awareness of tools the organization provides for securely sending emails or sharing large files;
–Protection of mobile devices;
–Awareness of CEO spoofing attacks.

In addition, small businesses should verify employees’ level of awareness by conducting simulation exercises. These can be in the form of a phishing exercise in which organizations themselves send fake emails to their employees to see if they will click on a web link, or a social engineering exercise in which a hired individual tries to enter the organization’s physical location and steal sensitive information such as information on computer screens left in plain sight.

In small organizations, sensitive information tends to proliferate across various platforms and folders. For example, employees’ personal information typically resides in human resources software or with a cloud service provider, but through various downloads and reports, the information can proliferate to shared drives and folders, laptops, emails, and even cloud folders like Dropbox or Google Drive. Assigned management at the organization should check that the organization has identified the sites of such proliferation to make sure it has a good handle on the state of all the organization’s sensitive information:

–Inventory all sensitive business processes and the related IT systems. Depending on the organization’s industry, this information could include customer information, pricing data, customers’ credit card information, patients’ health information, engineering data, or financial data;
–For each business process, identify an information owner who has complete authority to approve user access to that information;
–Ensure that the information owner periodically reviews access to all the information he or she owns and updates the access list.

Organizations should make it hard to get to their sensitive data by building layers or network segments. Although the network perimeter is an organization’s first line of defense, the probability of the network being penetrated is today at an all-time high. Management should check whether the organization has built a layered defense to protect its sensitive information. Once the organization has identified its sensitive information, management should work with the IT function to segment those servers that run its sensitive applications.  This segmentation will result in an additional layer of protection for these servers, typically by adding another firewall for the segment. Faced with having to penetrate another layer of defense, an intruder may decide to go elsewhere where less sensitive information is stored.

An organization’s electronic business front door also can be the entrance for fraudsters and criminals. Most of today’s malware enters through the network but proliferates through the endpoints such as laptops and desktops. At a minimum, internal small business management must ensure that all the endpoints are running anti-malware/anti-virus software. Also, they should check that this software’s firewall features are enabled. Moreover, all laptop hard drives should be encrypted.

In addition to making sure their client organizations have implemented these core controls, assurance professionals should advise small business client executives to consider other protective controls:

–Monitor the network. Network monitoring products and services can provide real-time alerts in case there is an intrusion;
–Manage service providers. Organizations should inventory all key service providers and review all contracts for appropriate security, privacy, and data breach notification language;
–Protect smart devices. Increasingly, company information is stored on mobile devices. Several off-the-shelf solutions can manage and protect the information on these devices. Small businesses should ensure they are able to wipe the sensitive information from these devices if they are lost or stolen;
–Monitor activity related to sensitive information. Management IT should log activities against their sensitive information and keep an audit log in case an incident occurs and they need to review the logs to evaluate the incident.

Combined with the controls listed above, these additional controls can help any small business reduce the probability of a data breach. But a security program is only as strong as its weakest link Through their assurance and advisory work, CFE’s and forensic accountants can proactively help identify these weaknesses and suggest ways to strengthen their smaller client organization’s anti-fraud defenses.

The Conflicted Board

Our last post about cyberfraud and business continuity elicited a comment about the vital role of corporate governance from an old colleague of mine now retired and living in Seattle.  But the wider question our commenter had was, ‘What are we as CFEs to make of a company whose Board willfully withholds for months information about a cyberfraud which negatively impacts it customers and the public? From the ethical point of view, does this render the Board somehow complicit in the public harm done?’

Governance of shareholder-controlled corporations refers to the oversight, monitoring, and controlling of a company’s activities and personnel to ensure support of the shareholders’ interests, in accordance with laws and the expectations of stakeholders. Governance has been more formally defined by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as a set of relationships between a company’s management, its Board, its shareholders, and other stakeholders. Corporate governance also provides the structure through which the objectives of the company are set (including about ethical continuity), and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance. Good corporate governance should provide proper incentives for the Board and management to pursue objectives that are in the interests of the company and its shareholders and should facilitate effective monitoring.

The role and mandate of the Board of Directors is of paramount importance in the governance framework. Typically, the directors are elected by the shareholders at their annual meeting, which is held to receive the company’s audited annual financial statements and the audit report thereon, as well as the comments of the chairman of the Board, the senior company officers, and the company auditor.

A Board of Directors often divides itself into subcommittees that concentrate more deeply in specific areas than time would allow the whole Board to pursue. These subcommittees are charged with certain actions and/or reviews on behalf of the whole Board, with the proviso that the whole Board must be briefed on major matters and must vote on major decisions. Usually, at least three subcommittees are created to review matters related to (1) governance, (2) compensation, and (3) audit, and to present their recommendations to the full Board. The Governance Committee deals with codes of conduct and company policy, as well as the allocation of duties among the subcommittees of the Board. The Compensation Committee reviews the performance of senior officers, and makes recommendations on the nature and size of salaries, bonuses, and related remuneration plans. Most important to fraud examiners and assurance professionals, the Audit Committee reviews internal controls and systems that generate financial reports prepared by management; the appropriateness of those financial reports; the effectiveness of the company’s internal and external auditors; its whistle-blowing systems, and their findings; and recommends the re-election or not of the company’s external auditors.

The Board must approve the selection of a Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and many Boards are now approving the appointment of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) as well because of the important of that position. Generally, the CEO appoints other senior executives, and they, in turn, appoint the executives who report to them. Members of these committees are selected for their expertise, interest, and character, with the expectation that the independent judgment of each director will be exercised in the best interest of the company. For example, the ACFE tells us, members of the Audit Committee must be financially literate, and have sufficient expertise to understand audit and financial matters. They must be of independent mind (i.e., not be part of management or be relying upon management for a significant portion of their annual income), and must be prepared to exercise that independence by voting for the interest of all shareholders, not just those of management or of specific limited shareholder groups.

Several behavioral expectations extend to all directors, i.e., to act in the best interest of the company (shareholders & stakeholders), to demonstrate loyalty by exercising independent judgment, acting in good faith, obedient to the interests of all and to demonstrate due care, diligence, and skill.

All directors are expected to demonstrate certain fiduciary duties. Shareholders are relying on directors to serve shareholders’ interests, not the directors’ own interests, nor those of management or a third party. This means that directors must exercise their own independent judgment in the best interests of the shareholders. The directors must do so in good faith (with true purpose, not deceit) on all occasions. They must exercise appropriate skill, diligence, and an expected level of care in all their actions.

Obviously, there will be times when directors will be able to make significant sums of money by misusing the trust with which they have been bestowed and at the expense of the other stakeholders of the company. At these times a director’s interests may conflict with those of the others. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that such conflicts are disclosed, and that they are managed so that no harm comes to the other shareholders. For example, if a director has an interest in some property or in a company that is being purchased, s/he should disclose this to the other directors and refrain from voting on the acquisition. These actions should alert other directors to the potential self-dealing of the conflicted director, and thereby avoid the non-conflicted directors from being misled into thinking that the conflicted director was acting only with the corporation’s interests in mind.

From time to time, directors may be sued’ by shareholders or third parties who believe that the directors have failed to live up to appropriate expectations. However, courts will not second-guess reasonable decisions by non-conflicted directors that have been taken prudently and on a reasonably informed basis. This is known as the business judgment ru1e and it protects directors charged with breach of their duty of care if they have acted honestly and reasonably. Even if no breach of legal rights has occurred, shareholders may charge that their interests have been ‘oppressed’ (i.e., prejudiced unfairly, or unfairly disregarded) by a corporation or a director’s actions, and courts may grant what is referred to as an oppression remedy of financial compensation or other sanctions against the corporation or the director personally. If, however, the director has not been self-dealing or misappropriating the company’s opportunities, s/he will likely be protected from personal liability by the business judgment rule.

Some shareholders or third parties have chosen to sue directors ‘personally in tort’ for their conduct as directors, even when they have acted in good faith and within the scope of their duties, and when they believed they were acting in the best interests of the corporations they serve.  Recently, courts have held that directors cannot escape such personal liability by simply claiming that they did the action when performing their corporate responsibilities. Consequently, directors or officers must take care when making all decisions that they meet normal standards of behavior.

Consequently, when management and the Board of a company who has been the victim of a cyber-attack decides to withhold information about the attack (sometimes for weeks or months), fundamental questions about compliance with fiduciary standards and ethical duty toward other stakeholders and the public can quickly emerge.   The impact of recent corporate cyber-attack scandals on the public has the potential to change future governance expectations dramatically. Recognition that some of these situations appear to have resulted from management inattention or neglect (the failure to timely patch known software vulnerabilities, for example) has focused attention on just how well a corporation can expect to remediate its public face and ensure ongoing business continuity following such revelations to the public.

My colleague points out that so damaging were the apparently self-protective actions taken by the Boards of some of these victim companies in the wake of several recent attacks to protect their share price, (thereby shielding the interests of existing executives, directors, and investors in the short term) that the credibility of their entire corporate governance and accountability processes has been jeopardized, thus endangering, in some cases, even their ability to continue as viable going concerns.

In summary, in the United States, the Board of Directors sits at the apex of a company’s governing structure. A typical Board’s duties include reviewing the company’s overall business strategy, selecting and compensating the company’s senior executives; evaluating the company’s outside auditor, overseeing the company’s financial statements; and monitoring overall company performance. According to the Business Roundtable, the Board’s ‘paramount duty’ is to safeguard the interests of the company’s shareholders.  It’s fair to ask if a Board that chooses not to reveal to its stakeholders or to the general investor public a potentially devastating cyber-fraud for many months can be said to have meet either the letter or the spirit of its paramount duty.

Cyberfraud & Business Continuity

We received an e-mail inquiry from a follower of our Chapter’s LinkedIn page last week asking specifically about recovery following a cyberfraud penetration and, in general, about disaster planning for smaller financial institutions. It’s a truism that with virtually every type of business process and customer moving away from brick-and-mortar places of business to cloud supported business transactions and communication, every such organization faces an exponential increase in the threat of viruses, bots, phishing attacks, identity theft, and a whole host of other cyberfraud intrusion risks.  All these threats illustrate why a post-intrusion continuity plan should be at or near the top of any organization’s risk assessment, yet many of our smaller clients especially remain stymied by what they feel are the costs and implementational complexity of developing such a plan. Although management understands that it should have a plan, many say, “we’ll have to get to that next year”, yet it never seems to happen.

Downtime due to unexpected penetrations, breeches and disasters of all kinds not only affect our client businesses individually, but can also affect the local, regional, or worldwide economy if the business is sufficiently large or critical. Organizations like Equifax do not operate in a vacuum; they are held accountable by customers, vendors, and owners to operate as expected. Moreover, the extent of the impact on a business depends on the products or services it offers. Having an updated, comprehensive, and tested general continuity plan can help organizations mitigate operational losses in the event of any disaster or major disruption. Whether it’s advising the organization about cyberfraud in general or reviewing the different elements of a continuity plan for fraud impact, the CFE can proactively assist the client organization on the front end in getting a cyberfraud-recovery continuity plan in place and then in ensuring its efficient operation on the back end.

Specifically, regarding the impact of cyberfraud, the ACFE tells us that, until relatively recently, many organizations reported not having directly addressed it in their formal business continuity plans. Some may have had limited plans that addressed only a few financial fraud-related scenarios, such as employee embezzlement or supplier billing fraud, but hadn’t equipped general employees to deal with even the most elemental impacts of cyberfraud.   However, as these threats increasingly loomed, and as their on-line business expanded, more organizations have committed themselves to the process of formally addressing them.

An overall business continuity plan, including targeted elements to address cyberfraud, isn’t a short-term project, but rather an ongoing set of procedures and control definitions that must evolve along with the organization and its environment. It’s an action plan, complete with the tools and resources needed to continue those critical business processes necessary to keep the entity operating after a cyber disruption. Before advising our clients to embark on such a business continuity plan project, we need to make them aware that there is a wealth of documentation available that they can review to help in their planning and execution effort. An example of such documentation is one written for the industry of our Chapter’s inquirer, banking; the U.S. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC’s) Business Continuity Planning Handbook. And there are other such guides available on-line to orient the continuity process for entities in virtually every other major business sector.  While banks are held to a high standard of preparedness, and are subject to regular bank examination, all types of organizations can profit from use of the detailed outline the FFIEC handbook provides as input to develop their own plans. The publication encourages organizations of all sizes to adopt a process-oriented approach to continuity planning that involves business impact analysis as well as fraud risk assessment, management, and monitoring.

An effective plan begins with client commitment from the top. Senior management and the board of directors are responsible for managing and controlling risk; plan effectiveness depends on management’s willingness to commit to the process from start to finish. Working as part of the implementation team, CFEs can make sure both the audit committee and senior management understand this commitment and realize that business disruption from cyber-attack represents an elevated risk to the organization that merits senior-level attention. The goal of this analysis is to identify the impact of cyber threats and related events on all the client organizations’ business processes. Critical needs are assessed for all functions, processes, and personnel, including specialized equipment requirements, outsourced relationships and dependencies, alternate site needs, staff cross-training, and staff support such as specialized training and guidance from human resources regarding related personnel issues. As participants in this process, CFEs acting proactively are uniquely qualified to assist management in the identification of different cyberfraud threats and their potential impacts on the organization.

Risk assessment helps gauge whether planned cyberfraud-related continuity efforts will be successful. Business processes and impact assumptions should be stress tested during this phase. Risks related to protecting customer and financial information, complying with regulatory guidelines, selecting new systems to support the business, managing vendors, and maintaining secure IT should all be considered. By focusing on a single type of potential cyber threat’s impact on the business, our client organizations can develop realistic scenarios of related threats that may disrupt the cyber-targeted processes.  At the risk assessment stage, organization should perform a gap analysis to compare what actions are needed to recover normal operations versus those required for a major business interruption. This analysis highlights cyber exposures that the organization will need to address in developing its recovery plan. Clients should also consider conducting another gap analysis to compare what is present in their proposed or existing continuity plan with what is outlined (in the case of a bank) in the recommendations presented in the FFIEC handbook. This is an excellent way to assess needs and compliance with these and/or the guidelines available for other industries. Here too, CFEs can provide value by employing their skills in fraud risk assessment to assist the organization in its identification of the most relevant cyber risks.

After analyzing the business impact analysis and risk assessment, the organization should devise a strategy to mitigate the risks of business interruption from cyberfraud. This becomes the plan itself, a catalog of steps and checklists, which includes team members and their roles for recovery, to initiate action following a cyber penetration event. The plan should go beyond technical issues to also include processes such as identifying a lead team, creating lists of emergency contacts, developing calling trees, listing manual procedures, considering alternate locations, and outlining procedures for dealing with public relations.  As members of the team CFEs, can work with management throughout response plan creation and installation, consulting on plan creation, while advising management on areas to consider and ensuring that fraud related risks are transparently defined and addressed.

Testing is critical to confirm cyber fraud contingency plans. Testing objectives should start small, with methods such as walkthroughs, and increase to eventually encompass tabletop exercises and full enterprise wide testing. The plan should be reviewed and updated for any changes in personnel, policies, operations, and technology. CFEs can provide management with a fraud-aware review of the plan and how it operates, but their involvement should not replace management’s participation in testing the actual plan. If the staff who may have to execute the plan have never touched it, they are setting themselves up for failure.

Once the plan is created and tested, maintaining it becomes the most challenging activity and is vital to success in today’s ever-evolving universe of cyber threats. Therefore, concurrent updating of the plan in the face of new and emerging threats is critical.

In summary, cyberfraud-threat continuity planning is an ongoing process for all types of internet dependent organizations that must remain flexible as daily threats change and migrate. The plan is a “living” document. The IT departments of organizations are challenged with identifying and including the necessary elements unique to their processes and environment on a continuous basis. Equally important, client management must oversee update of the plan on a concurrent basis as the business grows and introduces new on-line dependent products and services. CFEs can assist by ensuring that their client organizations keep cyberfraud related continuity planning at the top of mind by conducting periodic reviews of the basic plan and by reporting on the effectiveness of its testing.

From Inside the Building

By Rumbi Petrozzello, CFE, CPA/CFF
2017 Vice-President – Central Virginia Chapter ACFE

Several months ago, I attended an ACFE session where one of the speakers had worked on the investigation of Edward Snowden. He shared that one of the ways Snowden had gained access to some of the National Security Agency (NSA) data that he downloaded was through the inadvertent assistance of his supervisor. According to this investigator, Snowden’s supervisor shared his password with Snowden, giving Snowden access to information that was beyond his subordinate’s level of authorization. In addition to this, when those security personnel reviewing downloads made by employees noticed that Snowden was downloading copious amounts of data, they approached Snowden’s supervisor to question why this might be the case. The supervisor, while acknowledging this to be true, stated that Snowden wasn’t really doing anything untoward.

At another ACFE session, a speaker shared information with us about how Chelsea Manning was able to download and remove data from a secure government facility. Manning would come to work, wearing headphones, listening to music on a Discman. Security would hear the music blasting and scan the CDs. Day after day, it was the same scenario. Manning showed up to work, music blaring.  Security staff grew so accustomed to Manning, the Discman and her CDs that when she came to work though security with a blank CD boldly labelled “LADY GAGA”, security didn’t blink. They should have because it was that CD and ones like it that she later carried home from work that contained the data she eventually shared with WikiLeaks.

Both these high-profile disasters are notable examples of the bad outcome arising from a realized internal threat. Both Snowden and Manning worked for organizations that had, and have, more rigorous security procedures and policies in place than most entities. Yet, both Snowden and Manning did not need to perform any magic tricks to sneak data out of the secure sites where the target data was held; it seems that it all it took was audacity on the one side and trust and complacency on the other.

When organizations deal with outside parties, such as vendors and customers, they tend to spend a lot of time setting up the structures and systems that will guide how the organization will interact with those vendors and customers. Generally, companies will take these systems of control seriously, if only because of the problems they will have to deal with during annual external audits if they don’t. The typical new employee will spend a lot of time learning what the steps are from the point when a customer places an order through to the point the customer’s payment is received. There will be countless training manuals to which to refer and many a reminder from co-workers who may be negatively impacted if the rooky screws up.

However, this scenario tends not to hold up when it comes to how employees typically share information and interact with each other. This is true despite the elevated risk that a rogue insider represents. Often, when we think about an insider causing harm to a company through fraudulent acts, we tend to imagine a villain, someone we could identify easily because s/he is obviously a terrible person. After all, only a terrible person could defraud their employer. In fact, as the ACFE tells us, the most successful fraudsters are the ones who gain our trust and who, therefore, don’t really have to do too much for us to hand over the keys to the kingdom. As CFEs and Forensic Accountants, we need to help those we work with understand the risks that an insider threat can represent and how to mitigate that risk. It’s important, in advising our clients, to guide them toward the creation of preventative systems of policy and procedure that they sometimes tend to view as too onerous for their employees. Excuses I often hear run along the lines of:

• “Our employees are like family here, we don’t need to have all these rules and regulations”

• “I keep a close eye on things, so I don’t have to worry about all that”

• “My staff knows what they are supposed to do; don’t worry about it.”

Now, if people can easily walk sensitive information out of locations that have documented systems and are known to be high security operations, can you imagine what they can do at your client organizations? Especially if the employer is assuming that their employees magically know what they are supposed to do? This is the point that we should be driving home with our clients. We should look to address the fact that both trust and complacency in organizations can be problems as well as assets. It’s great to be able to trust employees, but we should also talk to our clients about the fraud triangle and how one aspect of it, pressure, can happen to any staff member, even the most trusted. With that in mind, it’s important to institute controls so that, should pressure arise with an employee, there will be little opportunity open to that employee to act. Both Manning and Snowden have publicly spoken about the pressures they felt that led them to act in the way they did. The reason we even know about them today is that they had the opportunity to act on those pressures. I’ve spent time consulting with large organizations, often for months at a time. During those times, I got to chat with many members of staff, including security. On a couple of occasions, I forgot and left my building pass at home. Even though I was on a first name basis with the security staff and had spent time chatting with them about our personal lives, they still asked me for identification and looked me up in the system. I’m sure they thought I was a nice and trustworthy enough person, but they knew to follow procedures and always checked on whether I was still authorized to access the building. The important point is that they, despite knowing me, knew to check and followed through.

Examples of controls employees should be reminded to follow are:

• Don’t share your password with a fellow employee. If that employee cannot access certain information with their own password, either they are not authorized to access that information or they should speak with an administrator to gain the desired access. Sharing a password seems like a quick and easy solution when under time pressures at work, but remind employees that when they share their login information, anything that goes awry will be attributed to them.

• Always follow procedures. Someone looking for an opportunity only needs one.

• When something looks amiss, thoroughly investigate it. Even if someone tells you that all is well, verify that this is indeed the case.

• Explain to staff and management why a specific control is in place and why it’s important. If they understand why they are doing something, they are more likely to see the control as useful and to apply it.

• Schedule training on a regular basis to remind staff of the controls in place and the systems they are to follow. You may believe that staff knows what they are supposed to do, but reminding them reduces the risk of them relying on hearsay and secondhand information. Management is often surprised by what they think staff knows and what they find out the staff really knows.

It should be clear to your clients that they have control over who has access to sensitive information and when and how it leaves their control. It doesn’t take much for an insider to gain access to this information. A face you see smiling at you daily is the face of a person you can grow comfortable with and with whom you can drop your guard. However, if you already have an adequate system and effective controls in place, you take the personal out of the equation and everyone understands that we are all just doing our job.

Sock Puppets

The issue of falsely claimed identity in all its myriad forms has shadowed the Internet since the beginning of the medium.  Anyone who has used an on-line dating or auction site is all too familiar with the problem; anyone can claim to be anyone.  Likewise, confidence games, on or off-line, involve a range of fraudulent conduct committed by professional con artists against unsuspecting victims. The victims can be organizations, but more commonly are individuals. Con artists have classically acted alone, but now, especially on the Internet, they usually group together in criminal organizations for increasingly complex criminal endeavors. Con artists are skilled marketers who can develop effective marketing strategies, which include a target audience and an appropriate marketing plan: crafting promotions, product, price, and place to lure their victims. Victimization is achieved when this marketing strategy is successful. And falsely claimed identities are always an integral component of such schemes, especially those carried out on-line.

Such marketing strategies generally involve a specific target market, which is usually made up of affinity groups consisting of individuals grouped around an objective, bond, or association like Facebook or LinkedIn Group users. Affinity groups may, therefore, include those associated through age, gender, religion, social status, geographic location, business or industry, hobbies or activities, or professional status. Perpetrators gain their victims’ trust by affiliating themselves with these groups.  Historically, various mediums of communication have been initially used to lure the victim. In most cases, today’s fraudulent schemes begin with an offer or invitation to connect through the Internet or social network, but the invitation can come by mail, telephone, newspapers and magazines, television, radio, or door-to-door channels.

Once the mark receives and accepts the offer to connect, some sort of response or acceptance is requested. The response will typically include (in the case of Facebook or LinkedIn) clicking on a link included in a fraudulent follow-up post to visit a specified web site or to call a toll-free number.

According to one of Facebook’s own annual reports, up to 11.2 percent of its accounts are fake. Considering the world’s largest social media company has 1.3 billion users, that means up to 140 million Facebook accounts are fraudulent; these users simply don’t exist. With 140 million inhabitants, the fake population of Facebook would be the tenth-largest country in the world. Just as Nielsen ratings on television sets determine different advertising rates for one television program versus another, on-line ad sales are determined by how many eyeballs a Web site or social media service can command.

Let’s say a shyster want 3,000 followers on Twitter to boost the credibility of her scheme? They can be hers for $5. Let’s say she wants 10,000 satisfied customers on Facebook for the same reason? No problem, she can buy them on several websites for around $1,500. A million new friends on Instagram can be had for only $3,700. Whether the con man wants favorites, likes, retweets, up votes, or page views, all are for sale on Web sites like Swenzy, Fiverr, and Craigslist. These fraudulent social media accounts can then be freely used to falsely endorse a product, service, or company, all for just a small fee. Most of the work of fake account set up is carried out in the developing world, in places such as India and Bangladesh, where actual humans may control the accounts. In other locales, such as Russia, Ukraine, and Romania, the entire process has been scripted by computer bots, programs that will carry out pre-encoded automated instructions, such as “click the Like button,” repeatedly, each time using a different fake persona.

Just as horror movie shape-shifters can physically transform themselves from one being into another, these modern screen shifters have their own magical powers, and organizations of men are eager to employ them, studying their techniques and deploying them against easy marks for massive profit. In fact, many of these clicks are done for the purposes of “click fraud.” Businesses pay companies such as Facebook and Google every time a potential customer clicks on one of the ubiquitous banner ads or links online, but organized crime groups have figured out how to game the system to drive profits their way via so-called ad networks, which capitalize on all those extra clicks.

Painfully aware of this, social media companies have attempted to cut back on the number of fake profiles. As a result, thousands and thousands of identities have disappeared over night among the followers of many well know celebrities and popular websites. If Facebook has 140 million fake profiles, there is no way they could have been created manually one by one. The process of creation is called sock puppetry and is a reference to the children’s toy puppet created when a hand is inserted into a sock to bring the sock to life. In the online world, organized crime groups create sock puppets by combining computer scripting, web automation, and social networks to create legions of online personas. This can be done easily and cheaply enough to allow those with deceptive intentions to create hundreds of thousands of fake online citizens. One only needs to consult a readily available on-line directory of the most common names in any country or region. Have a scripted bot merely pick a first name and a last name, then choose a date of birth and let the bot sign up for a free e-mail account. Next, scrape on-line photo sites such as Picasa, Instagram, Facebook, Google, and Flickr to choose an age-appropriate image to represent your new sock puppet.

Armed with an e-mail address, name, date of birth, and photograph, you sign up your fake persona for an account on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or Instagram. As a last step, you teach your puppets how to talk by scripting them to reach out and send friend requests, repost other people’s tweets, and randomly like things they see Online. Your bots can even communicate and cross-post with one another. Before the fraudster knows it, s/he has thousands of sock puppets at his disposal for use as he sees fit. It is these armies of sock puppets that criminals use as key constituents in their phishing attacks, to fake on-line reviews, to trick users into downloading spyware, and to commit a wide variety of financial frauds, all based on misplaced and falsely claimed identity.

The fraudster’s environment has changed and is changing over time, from a face-to-face physical encounter to an anonymous on-line encounter in the comfort of the victim’s own home. While some consumers are unaware that a weapon is virtually right in front of them, others are victims who struggle with the balance of the many wonderful benefits offered by advanced technology and the painful effects of its consequences. The goal of law enforcement has not changed over the years; to block the roads and close the loopholes of perpetrators even as perpetrators continue to strive to find yet another avenue to commit fraud in an environment in which they can thrive. Today, the challenge for CFEs, law enforcement and government officials is to stay on the cutting edge of technology, which requires access to constantly updated resources and communication between organizations; the ability to gather information; and the capacity to identify and analyze trends, institute effective policies, and detect and deter fraud through restitution and prevention measures.

Now is the time for CFEs and other assurance professionals to continuously reevaluate all we for take for granted in the modern technical world and to increasingly question our ever growing dependence on the whole range of ubiquitous machines whose potential to facilitate fraud so few of our clients and the general public understand.

Small Scale Electronic Crime Scenes

Most frauds aren’t Enron.  As the ACFE tells us, most frauds encountered by practicing CFE’s are what I like to call “small crime-scene frauds” perpetrated by long time employees like Mary who works in a back office keeping the books, knows everything about the company, and who has been quietly embezzling lesser amounts of company funds without detection for the last fifteen years.  In today’s environment, Mary will be doing her work on a desktop computer, probably connected to a small network with internet access.  Mary’s workstation and the simple network supporting it constitute an electronic crime-scene to be investigated as thoroughly and with as much attention to detail as possible and accompanied by a full set of investigative documentation if there is ever to be any hope of obtaining a conviction (should Mary’s employer, your client, finally decide to go that way).

It goes without saying that the investigator or team of investigators to any crime scene, large or small, have the primary responsibility of protecting all the computer and related electronic evidence that might be useful in a future civil or criminal action. Evidence is where the CFE or other investigators find it. While crime scene evidence from personal and property crimes might be in plain view, computer and electronic evidence is subtler and might not be as evident or obvious at the scene.  In general, first responders at any scene can destroy critical latent evidence if they lack training in the proper identification, collection, and packaging procedures for the type of investigation. This means that both corporate security departments and law enforcement agencies routinely involved in such investigations specially train their personnel in computer and electronic investigative techniques. Much of the potential evidence at a small-scale scene might be circumstantial, but it could possibly be used to support the primary physical and direct evidence that a detailed investigation will later develop. A list of inappropriate purchases and related amounts found on Mary’s workstation at the crime scene could be persuasive to a jury if properly obtained.

Thus, education and preparation are major components of any successful crime scene search for electronic evidence. However, our corporate clients need to be made aware of what all law enforcement agencies know, that in-house or external security personnel, whose background might sometimes even include the performance of criminal crime scene searches, are usually not qualified for large or small-scale computer crime scene searches.

The basic steps involved in a small-scale computer site investigation include the following:

–Secure and protect the scene;
–Initiate a preliminary survey;
–Evaluate physical evidence possibilities;
–Prepare a narrative description;
–Take photographs of the scene;
–Prepare a diagram/sketch of the scene;
–Conduct a detailed search and record and collect physical evidence;
–Conduct a final survey;
–Release the crime scene.

Although a number of these steps also apply to crime scene searches for crimes involving misdemeanors and felonies, the orientation of their performance in the investigation of an electronic crime scene is more technical in nature. When a computer or some electronic device is suspected of having been used as a tool in the perpetration of a crime, normal evidence gathering techniques for computer forensics processing should always be followed. It does not matter whether the crime scene is also suspected of having been additionally involved in a separate fraud issue, a civil, or a criminal investigation; if a computer or other electronic device is involved, the steps will be the same in all cases.

It is also essential that the organization’s computer personnel be excluded from the crime scene. Most computer specialists are not familiar with computer forensics techniques and individuals among them could have been involved in the crime, wittingly or unwittingly. Additionally, security must be provided for the area while the investigation is proceeding. Any employees or visitors who subsequently enter the scene need to be identified.  Try to identify in writing anyone who has routine access to the site or anyone who might have a reason to be involved with the scene generally. Do not rely on your memory alone, as it will not sufficiently support you in a court of law.

Computer and electronic evidence usually takes on the same general forms with which we’re all familiar: computer hardware, peripherals, cell phones, hand held devices, various storage media, digital cameras, and the list goes on. The investigator will have a general knowledge of the types of evidence that can be collected from each of these devices; however, s/he must be prepared for new devices showing up at any crime scene at any time. A cautious walkthrough is a good first step to get a feel for the complexity of the site. In addition to a workstation, several additional workstations or areas might become part of the investigation. Keep in mind that due to the networking configurations of even today’s smallest systems, remote sites might probably be involved in the investigation.

The investigator(s) should strive to maintain a continuing level of control of the situation and of the physical site during the investigation.  An inventory log and chain-of-custody form should be completed and photographs made of all relevant devices and related electronic evidence. Specific activities that might be included in this phase of the investigation include:

–Determination of all the locations that might need to be searched;
–Look out for any specific issues that need to be addressed relating to pieces of hardware and software;
–Identification of any possible personnel and equipment needed for the investigation but not yet on-site;
–Determination of which devices can be physically removed from the site;
–Identification of all individuals who have had access to the computer or electronic resources material to the investigation.

The evaluation of physical evidence is a continuation of the preliminary survey and may not be perceived as a separate step. After the site is thoroughly photographed, a more detailed search can begin. Before any devices are handled, remember that fingerprint evidence might become evidence in establishing who used these devices. The smallest, most insignificant appearing piece of evidence might clinch a case. Any network capability and connections to the computer site must be identified. Networking can broaden any investigation considerably. If there is an internet connection, it can become a worldwide investigation involving various internet service providers and the possibility of subpoenas. Cell-phone evidence may involve various telephone network carriers and additional subpoenas.  Prioritize the evidence collection process to prevent loss, destruction, or modification. Focus first on items easily identifiable and accessible and proceed to identified out-of-sight evidence. Look for the obvious first, the suspect might have been sloppy.

A journal or narrative must be prepared concerning the investigation and the crime scene search. Anything and everything is important when conducting the scene investigation. Remember that the defense attorney is going to query any witnesses on the most obscure item possible. A technique suggested by the ACFE is to represent crime scenes in a “general to specific” scheme. Describe the site in broad terms and then get very specific with details. A sound idea is to cross-reference a chronological journal with the photographic evidence and a chain-of-custody form. The narrative effort should not degenerate into a sporadic and unorganized attempt to recover physical evidence. Under most circumstances, evidence should not be collected while developing the narrative. The narrative process can be accomplished by using audio, video, or text. Remember the axiom “haste makes waste.”

Developing a photographic profile of the crime scene is a requirement for any computer forensic investigation no matter how small. Photographs should be taken as soon as the incident scene is secured and before any computers or electronic devices are moved. Photographs should be taken from all angles of the physical site. Close-ups of cable connections for all devices should be included. Note these cables will need to be separately tagged in another step. Any video screens displayed would be photographed. The photographic effort needs to be recorded in a photographic log.  Photographs should be taken as soon as possible to depict the scene as it is observed before anything is handled, moved, or introduced to the scene. Photographs allow a visual permanent record of the crime scene and items of evidence collected from the crime scene.

A diagram or sketch establishes a permanent record of items, conditions, and distance/size relationships. They also supplement the photographic record. Usually a rough sketch is drawn at the crime scene and is used as a model for a complete, formal document that would be completed later. The sketch can be coordinated with any logs or journals via a numbering scheme. Sketches are used along with the reports and photographs to document the scene. A crime scene sketch is simply a drawing that accurately shows the appearance of a crime scene.

The CFE will usually have a general idea from discussions with the client as to the types of evidence that s/he will find at the incident scene. A checklist can be developed that will identify most types of computer and electronic evidence that might be at a small-scale crime scene. The major difference between investigations will probably be the size of the computer system and the amount of disk storage that will need to be secured or imaged. Seizure of electronic devices, such as cell phones and iPads, should not pose any special problems due to their small size. It might be necessary to determine the amount of disk storage records that need to be copied or imaged for later forensic analysis. On large data bases or for data in the cloud it will be next to impossible to copy or image the entire storage device. In these cases, a forensic examination might have to occur partly at the crime scene and partly off-site once the required permissions for data access are received from the data owners of record.

Conflicts in documentation can cause considerable grief in a court of law. Also, if a computer system is to be reconstructed later, cable connections and maps must be precise. There are four basic premises to the search, recording, and collection phase of a small- scale investigation. These premises are as follows:

–The best search options are typically the most difficult and time consuming;
–The physical evidence cannot be over-documented;
–There is generally only one best chance to properly perform the investigative task;
–Cautious searching of visible areas and identification and searching of relevant off-site areas is crucial.

After the investigative team has completed all tasks relating to the search, recording, and collection phases at the small-scale crime scene, a critical review should be conducted to ensure that nothing has been missed. This is the last chance to cover all the bases and ensure nothing has been overlooked. The investigators must ensure that they have gone far enough in the search for evidence, documented all essential things, and made no assumptions that may prove to be incorrect later.

–Double-check documentation to detect inadvertent errors;
–Check to ensure all evidence is accounted for before leaving the crime scene;
–Ensure all forensic hardware and software used in the search is gathered;
–Ensure possible hiding places of evidence and difficult areas for access have not been overlooked;

An incident scene debriefing is the best opportunity for personnel and participants to ensure the investigation is complete.

The last step in the evidence investigation phase for a small-scale crime scene featuring electronic evidence is to release the incident scene back to its owners. The release is accomplished only after completion of the final survey. The individual investigator or team should provide an inventory of the items seized to the client owner/manager of the scene. A receipt for electronic evidence must be completed for any devices seized. A formal document should be provided that specifies the time and date of the release, to whom released, and by whom released.