Category Archives: Cyber Crime

Taken Hostage

by Rumbi Petrozzello
2019 Vice President – Central Virginia ACFE Chapter

On March 22, 2018, I flew into the Atlanta Airport and stopped by the airport’s EMS offices to request an incident report. The gentleman who greeted me at the entrance to the offices was very kind and asked me to wait while he pulled up the details of the report for me. He called over to his coworker, who was sitting in front of a computer, and asked him for help. I heard the coworker clicking on his mouse a few times and then he said that his machine didn’t seem to be working. “It hasn’t been working all morning,” he added. The gentleman then gave me a phone number to call for assistance and apologized for not being more helpful. After I called the number, got voicemail and left a message, I became concerned because I was leaving the country the next day for a week and a half and so hoped that someone would get back to me that day.

Unfortunately, no one had called me back by the time I left. When I returned, I found no voicemail. I called again and left a message. A week after that, the airport EMS Chief returned my call with apologies for the delay – their computers had been down, and he was only now able to start getting back to people. Because I had been out of the country and not really following the news, it was only after a couple of months that I put two and two together. At that point I was working on Eye on Fraud, a publication of the AICPA’s Fraud Task Force. The edition was on Ransomware and as I looked at the information concerning Atlanta, I noticed the dates and realized that the day that I flew into Atlanta and visited the EMS office was the same day that the city of Atlanta was struck by a ransomware attack that crippled the city for over a week and resulted in costs to the city exceeding $2.6 million; a lot more than the $52,000 that was demanded in ransom by the attackers. In late November, two Iranians were indicted for the Atlanta and other attacks. The Atlanta ransomware attack featured many characteristics shared by such attacks, be they on individuals, companies, or governments.

Ransomware attacks have been a problem for decades; the first such documented attack took place in 1989. At that time the malicious code was delivered to victims’ computers via floppy disk and the whole exploit was very easy for victims to reverse. 2006 saw a big uptick in ransomware attacks and, today, ransomware is big business for individual cyber criminals and for organized gangs alike, earning them about a billion dollars in 2016.

Ransomware is a form of malware (malicious software), and works in one of two general ways:

1. Crypto-ransomware encrypts hard drives or files and folders.
2. Locker-ransomware locks users out of their machines, without employing encryption.

As time has gone on, ransomware has become more complex and ransomware attacks more sophisticated. One way in which cyber criminals break into computer systems is via human engineering. This can take the form of an email with a malicious attachment or a link to a compromised website. Cyber criminals also take advantage of known weaknesses in computer operating systems. The WannaCry ransomware, which swept the globe several years ago, took advantage of a flaw in Microsoft Windows. This underscores how essential it is to provide cyber training to employees and to update this training often. Employees must be taught to always be vigilant and on the lookout for such attacks, and to maintain awareness of how such threats are constantly changing and migrating. All it takes is a single employee lapse in judgment and attention for malware to get into a business’s computer system. It’s also essential to keep computers and software up to date with the latest patches. WannaCry was successful in part because Microsoft had discontinued its support of some versions of Windows, including for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. The amount of money companies thought they were saving by continuing to use old unsupported software was dwarfed by the cost of recovery from malware attacks specifically targeting that software.

When CFEs and forensic accountants dialogue with clients about ransomware attack scenarios, we should remind them that cyber criminals are equal opportunity offenders when it comes to such exploits. Employees should be alert to this whether they are working on an employer’s machine or on a personal one. Ransomware has now made its way into the smartphone space, so employees should be made aware that heightened vigilance should extend even to their smartphones. CFEs should additionally work with clients to fund penetration and phishing tests to determine how effective staff training has been and to highlight areas for improvement.

Both individuals and companies should have a plan on how they will deal with a possible ransomware attack. A well-thought out plan can minimize the effects of an attack and can also mean that the reaction to the attack is measured and not mounted on the basis of uncoordinated panic. For example, when LabCorp was attacked in July 2018, the company contained the spread of the malware in less than an hour. Its, therefore, doubly important that we CFEs and forensic accountants work with IT specialists to formulate an advance plan in case of a ransomware or other malware, attack.

Experts recommend that ransom should not be paid. Clients need to be made to understand that when their systems are taken hostage, they are dealing with criminals and criminals are, more often than not, not to be trusted. When the city of Leeds, Alabama, was attacked, the city paid the cyber criminals $12,000 in ransom. Despite making this payment, the hackers restored only a limited number of files. The city was then faced with the expenditure of additional funds in the attempt to recover or rebuild the remaining files. Sometimes hackers will disappear with ransom and restore nothing. In the face of this, companies and individuals should be encouraged to have back up and restoration plans. To be useful, backups must be made regularly and kept physically separate from the machine or network being protected. The recovery plan should be tested at least annually.

Ransomware exploits are not going away any time soon. Ransomware attacks are a way to get money, not only through the ransom demanded itself but also through access to other sensitive information belonging to employees and clients. Often the hacker will demand a nominal amount in ransom and sell the information stolen by access to the company’s network for a lot more.

We, as CFEs and forensic accountants, can help our client address the ballooning threat in a number of ways:

• by performing a risk assessments of clients’ systems and processes, to identify weaknesses and areas for control improvement.
• by providing staff training on security best practices. This training should be updated at least once a year; in addition to updating staff on changes, this will also serve to remind employees to be vigilant. This training must include everyone in a company, even top management and the board.
• by reminding clients to keep software up to date and to consider upgrades or total changes when an application is no longer supported. Encourage management to have software updates automated on employees’ machines.
• by working with clients to create a backup and recovery system, that features off-site backups. This program should be tested regularly, and backups should be reviewed to ensure their integrity.
• by working with IT and third-party vendors on annual penetration and social engineering testing at client locations. The third-party vendors used should be rotated ever three years.

CSO Online predicts that ransomware attacks will rise to one every 14 seconds by the end of 2019. We CFEs and forensic accountants should work with our clients to innovate effective ways to protect themselves and to mitigate the effects of the future attacks that certainly will occur. The key is to ensure that clients remain educated, vigilant and prepared.

Cloud Shapes

Just as clouds can take different shapes and be perceived differently, so too is cloud computing perceived differently by our various types of client companies. To some, the cloud looks like web-based applications, a revival of the old thin client. To others, the cloud looks like utility computing, a grid that charges metered rates for processing time. To some, the cloud could be parallel computing, designed to scale complex processes for improved efficiency. Interestingly, cloud services are wildly different. Amazon’s Elastic Compute Cloud offers full Linux machines with root access and the opportunity to run whatever apps the user chooses. Google’s App Engine will also let users run any program they want, as long as the user specifies it in a limited version of Python and uses Google’s database.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines cloud computing as a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. It is also important to remember what our ACFE tells us, that the Internet itself is in fact a primitive transport cloud. Users place something on the path with an expectation that it will get to the proper destination, in a reasonable time, with all parties respecting the privacy and security of the artifact.

Cloud computing, as everyone now knows, brings many advantages to users and vendors. One of its biggest advantages is that a user may no longer have to be tethered to a traditional computer to use an application, or have to buy a version of an application that is specifically configured for a phone, a tablet or other device. Today, any device that can access the Internet can run a cloud-based application. Application services are available independent of the user’s home or office devices and network interfaces. Regardless of the device being used, users also face fewer maintenance issues. End users don’t have to worry about storage capacity, compatibility or other similar concerns.

From a fraud prevention perspective, these benefits are the result of the distributed nature of the web, which necessitates a clear separation between application and interaction logic. This is because application logic and user data reside mostly on the web cloud and manifest themselves in the form of tangible user interfaces at the point of interaction, e.g., within a web browser or mobile web client. Cloud computing is also beneficial for our client’s vendors. Businesses frequently find themselves using the vast majority of their computing capacity in a small percentage of time, leaving expensive equipment often idle. Cloud computing can act as a utility grid for vendors and optimize the use of their resources. Consider, for example, a web-based application running in Amazon’s cloud. Suppose there is a sudden surge in visitors as a result of media coverage, for example. Formerly, many web applications would fail under the load of big traffic spikes. But in the cloud, assuming that the web application has been designed intelligently, additional machine instances can be launched on demand.

With all the benefits, there are related constraints. Distrust is one of the main constraints on online environments generally. particularly in terms of consumer fraud, waste and abuse protection. Although the elements that contribute to building trust can be identified in broad terms, there are still many uncertainties in defining and establishing trust in online environments. Why should users trust cloud environments to store their personal information and to share their privacy in such a large and segregated environment? This question can be answered only by investigating these uncertainties in the context of risk assessment and by exploring the relationship between trust and the way in which the risk is perceived by stakeholders. Users are assumed to be willing to disclose personal information and have that information used subsequently to store their personal data or to create consumer profiles for business use when they perceive that fair procedures are in place to protect their individual privacy.

The changing trust paradigm represented by cloud computing means that less information is stored locally on our client’s machines and is instead being hosted elsewhere on earth. No one for the most part buys software anymore; users just rent it or receive it for free using the Software as a Service (SaaS) business model. On the personal front, cloud computing means Google is storing user’s mail, Instagram their photographs, and Dropbox their documents, not to mention what mobile phones are automatically uploading to the cloud for them. In the corporate world, enterprise customers not only are using Dropbox but also have outsourced primary business functions that would have previously been handled inside the company to SaaS providers such as Salesforce.com, Zoho.com, and Box.com.

From a crime and security perspective, the aggregation of all these data, exabytes and exabytes of it, means that user’s most personal of information is no longer likely stored solely on their local hard drives but now aggregated on computer servers around the world. By aggregating important user data, financial and otherwise, on cloud-based computer servers, the cloud has obviated the need for criminals to target everybody’s hard drive individually and instead put all the jewels in a single place for criminals and hackers to target (think Willie Sutton).

The cloud is here to stay, and at this point there is no going back. But with this move to store all available data in the cloud come additional risks. Thinking of some of the largest hacks to date, Target, Heartland Payment Systems, TJX, and Sony PlayStation Network; all of these thefts of hundreds of millions of accounts were made possible because the data were stored in the same virtual location. The cloud is equally convenient for individuals, businesses, and criminals.

The virtualization and storage of all of these data is a highly complex process and raises a wide array of security, public policy, and legal issues for all CFEs and for our clients. First, during an investigation, where exactly is this magical cloud storing my defrauded client’s data? Most users have no idea when they check their status on Facebook or upload a photograph to Pinterest where in the real world this information is actually being stored. That they do not even stop to pose the question is a testament to the great convenience, and opacity, of the system. Yet from a corporate governance and fraud prevention risk perspective, whether your client’s data are stored on a computer server in America, Russia, China, or Iceland makes a difference.

ACFE guidance emphasizes that the corporate and individual perimeters that used to protect information internally are disappearing, and the beginning and end of corporate user computer networks are becoming far less well defined. It’s making it much harder for examiners and auditors to see what data are coming and going from a company, and the task is nearly impossible on the personal front. The transition to the cloud is a game changer for anti-fraud security because it completely redefines where data are stored, moved, and accessed, creating sweeping new opportunities for criminal hackers. Moreover, the non-local storage of data raises important questions about deep dependence on cloud-based information systems. When these services go down or become unavailable i.e., a denial of service attack, or the Internet connection is lost, the data become unavailable, and your client for our CFE services is out of business.

All the major cloud service providers are routinely remotely targeted by criminal attacks, including Dropbox, Google, and Microsoft, and more such attacks occur daily. Although it may be your client’s cloud service provider that is targeted in such attack, the client is the victim, and the data taken is theirs’s. Of course, the rights reserved to the providers in their terms of service agreements (and signed by users) usually mean that provider companies bear little or no liability when data breaches occur. These attacks threaten intellectual property, customer data, and even sensitive government information.

To establish trust with end users in the cloud environment, all organizations should address these fraud related risks. They also need to align their users’ perceptions with their policies. Efforts should be made to develop a standardized approach to trust and risk assessment across different domains to reduce the burden on users who seek to better understand and compare policies and practices across cloud provider organizations. This standardized approach will also aid organizations that engage in contractual sharing of consumer information, making it easier to assess risks across organizations and monitor practices for compliance with contracts. policies and law.

During the fraud risk assessment process, CFEs need to advise their individual corporate clients to mandate a given cloud based activity in which they participate to be conducted fairly and to address their privacy concerns. By ensuring this fairness and respecting privacy, organizations give their customers the confidence to disclose personal information on the cloud and to allow that information subsequently to be used to create consumer profiles for business use. Thus, organizations that understand the roles of trust and risk should be advised to continuously monitor user perceptions to understand their relation to risk aversion and risk management. Managers should not rely solely on technical control measures. Security researchers have tended to focus on the hard issues of cryptography and system design. By contrast. issues revolving around the use of computers by lay users and the creation of active incentives to avoid fraud have been relatively neglected. Many ACFE lead studies have shown that human errors are the main cause of information security incidents.

Piecemeal approaches to control security issues related to cloud environments fail simply because they are usually driven by a haphazard occurrence; reaction to the most recent incident or the most recently publicized threat. In other words, managing information security in cloud environments requires collaboration among experts from different disciplines, including computer scientists. engineers. economists, lawyers and anti-fraud assurance professionals like CFE’s, to forge common approaches.

Targeting the Blockchain

Both the blockchain and its digital engineering support structures underlying the digital currencies that are fast becoming the financial and transactional media of choice for the nefarious, are now increasingly finding themselves under various modes of fraudster attack.

Bitcoins, the most familiar blockchain application, 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 Bitcoins are purchased 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 $1,240 in 2013 to around $600 today.

The whole point of using a blockchain is to let people, in particular, people who don’t trust one another, share valuable data in a secure, tamper-proof way. That’s because blockchains store data using sophisticated math and innovative software rules that are extremely difficult for attackers to manipulate. But as cases like the Mount Gox Bitcoin hack demonstrate, the security of even the best designed blockchain and associated support systems can fail in places where the fancy math and software rules come into contact with humans; humans who are skilled fraudsters, in the real world, where things quickly get messy. For CFEs to understand why, start with what makes blockchains “secure” in principle. Bitcoin is a good example. In Bitcoin’s blockchain, the shared data is the history of every Bitcoin transaction ever made: it’s a plain old accounting ledger. The ledger is stored in multiple copies on a network of computers, called “nodes:’ Each time someone submits a transaction to the ledger, the nodes check to make sure the transaction is valid, that whoever spent a bitcoin had a bitcoin to spend. A subset of the nodes competes to package valid transactions into “blocks” and add them to a chain of previous blocks. The owners of these nodes are called miners. Miners who successfully add new blocks to the chain earn bitcoins as a reward.

What makes this system theoretically tamperproof is two things: a cryptographic fingerprint unique to each block, and a consensus protocol, the process by which the nodes in the network agree on a shared history. The fingerprint, called a hash, takes a lot of computing time and energy to generate initially. It thus serves as proof that the miner who added the block to the blockchain did the computational work to earn a bitcoin reward (for this reason, Bitcoin is said to employ a proof-of-work protocol). It also serves as a kind of seal, since altering the block would require generating a new hash. Verifying whether or not the hash matches its block, however, is easy, and once the nodes have done so they update their respective copies of the blockchain with the new block. This is the consensus protocol.

The final security element is that the hashes also serve as the links in the blockchain: each block includes the previous block’s unique hash. So, if you want to change an entry in the ledger retroactively, you have to calculate a new hash not only for the block it’s in but also for every subsequent block. And you have to do this faster than the other nodes can add new blocks to the chain. Consequently, unless you have computers that are more powerful than the rest of the nodes combined (and even then, success isn’t guaranteed), any blocks you add will conflict with existing ones, and the other nodes will automatically reject your alterations. This is what makes the blockchain tamperproof, or immutable.

The reality, as experts are increasingly pointing out, is that implementing blockchain theory in actual practice is difficult. The mere fact that a system works like Bitcoin, as many copycat cryptocurrencies do, doesn’t mean it’s just as secure as Bitcoin. Even when developers use tried and true cryptographic tools, it’s easy to accidentally put them together in ways that are not secure. Bitcoin has been around the longest, so it’s just the most thoroughly battle-tested.

As the ACFE and others have indicated, fraudsters have also found creative ways to cheat. Its been shown that there is a way to subvert a blockchain even if you have less than half the mining power of the other miners. The details are somewhat technical, but essentially a “selfish miner” can gain an unfair advantage by fooling other nodes into wasting time on already-solved crypto-puzzles.

The point is that no matter how tamperproof a blockchain protocol is, it does not exist in a vacuum. The cryptocurrency hacks driving recent headlines are usually failures at places where blockchain systems connect with the real world, for example, in software clients and third-party applications. Hackers can, for instance, break into hot wallets, internet-connected applications for storing the private cryptographic keys that anyone who owns cryptocurrency requires in order to spend it. Wallets owned by online cryptocurrency exchanges have become prime targets. Many exchanges claim they keep most of their users’ money in cold hardware wallets, storage devices disconnected from the internet. But as the recent heist of more than $500 million worth of cryptocurrency from a Japan based exchange showed, that’s not always the case.

Perhaps the most complicated touchpoints between blockchains and the real world are smart contracts, which are computer programs stored in certain kinds of blockchain that can automate financial and other contract related business transactions. Several years ago, hackers exploited an unforeseen quirk in a smart contract written on Ethereum’s blockchain to steal 3.6 million Ether, worth around $80 million at the time from a new kind of blockchain-based investment fund. Since the investment fund’s code lived on the blockchain, the Ethereum community had to push a controversial software upgrade called a hard fork to get the money back, essentially creating a new version of history in which the money was never stolen. According to a number of experts, researchers are scrambling to develop other methods for ensuring that smart contracts won’t malfunction.

An important supposed security guarantee of a blockchain system is decentralization. If copies of the blockchain are kept on a large and widely distributed network of nodes, there’s no one weak point to attack, and it’s hard for anyone to build up enough computing power to subvert the network. But recent reports in the trade press indicate that neither Bitcoin nor Ethereum is as decentralized as the public has been led to believe. The reports indicate that the top four bitcoin-mining operations had more than 53 percent of the system’s average mining capacity per week. By the same measure, three Ethereum miners accounted for 61 percent of Ethereum transactions.

Some experts say alternative consensus protocols, perhaps ones that don’t rely on mining, could be more secure. But this hypothesis hasn’t been tested at a large scale, and new protocols would likely have their own security problems. Others see potential in blockchains that require permission to join, unlike in Bitcoin’s case, where anyone who downloads the software can join the network.

Such consensus systems are anathema to the antihierarchical ethos of cryptocurrencies, but the approach appeals to financial and other institutions looking to exploit the advantages of a shared cryptographic database. Permissioned systems, however, raise their own questions. Who has the authority to grant permission? How will the system ensure that the validators are who they say they are? A permissioned system may make its owners feel more secure, but it really just gives them more control, which means they can make changes whether or not other network participants agree, something true believers would see as violating the very idea of blockchain.

So, in the end, for CFEs, the word ‘secure’ ends up being very hard to define in the context of blockchains. Secure from whom? Secure for what?

A final thought for CFEs and forensic accountants. There are no real names stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, but it records every transaction made by your user client; every time the currency is used the user risks exposing information that can tie his or her identity to those actions. It is known from documents leaked by Edward Snowden that the US National Security Agency has sought ways of connecting activity on the Bitcoin blockchain to people in the physical world. Should governments seek to create and enforce blacklists, they will find that the power to decide which transactions to honor may lie in the hands of just a few Bitcoin miners.

Every Seat Taken!

Our Chapter’s thanks to all our attendees and to our partners, the Virginia State Police and national ACFE for the unqualified success of our May training event, Cyberfraud and Data Breaches! Our speaker, Cary Moore, CFE, CISSP, conducted a fully interactive, two-day session on one of the most challenging and relevant topics confronting practicing fraud examiners and forensic accountants today.

The event examined the potential avenues of data loss and guided attendees through the crucial strategies needed to mitigate the threat of malicious data theft and the risk of inadvertent data loss, recognizing that information is a valuable asset, and that management must take proactive steps to protect the organization’s intellectual property. As Cary forcefully pointed out, the worth of businesses is no longer based solely on tangible assets and revenue-making potential; the information the organization develops, stores, and collects accounts for a large share of its value.

A data breach occurs when there is a loss or theft of, or unauthorized access to, proprietary information that could result in compromising the data. It is essential that management understand the crisis its organization might face if its information is lost or stolen. Data breaches incur not only high financial costs but can also have a lasting negative effect on an organization’s brand and reputation.

Protecting information assets is especially important because the threats to such assets are on the rise, and the cost of a data breach increases with the number of compromised records. According to a 2017 study by the Ponemon Institute, data breaches involving fewer than 10,000 records caused an average loss of $1.9 million, while beaches with more than 50,000 compromised records caused an average loss of $6.3 million. However, before determining how to protect information assets, it is important to understand the nature of these assets and the many methods by which they can be breached.

Intellectual property is a catchall phrase for knowledge-based assets and capital, but it’s helpful to think of it as intangible proprietary information. Intellectual property (IP) is protected by law. IP law grants certain exclusive rights to owners of a variety of intangible assets. These rights incentivize individuals, company leaders, and investors to allocate the requisite resources to research, develop, and market original technology and creative works.

A trade secret is any idea or information that gives its owner an advantage over its competitors. Trade secrets are particularly susceptible to theft because they provide a competitive advantage. What constitutes a trade secret, however, depends on the organization, industry, and jurisdiction, but generally, to be classified as a trade secret, information must:

• Be secret: The information is not generally known to the relevant portion of the public.
• Confer some sort of economic benefit on its holder: The idea or information must give its owner an advantage over its competitors. The benefit conferred from the information, however, must stem from not being generally known, not just from the value of the information itself. The best test for determining what is confidential information is to determine whether the information would provide an advantage to the competition.
• Be the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy: The owner must take reasonable steps to protect its trade secrets from disclosure. That is, a piece of information will not receive protection as a trade secret if the owner does not take adequate steps to protect it from disclosure.

Cary presented in-depth information on the various types of threats to data security including:

–Insiders
–Hackers
–Competitors
–Organized criminal groups
–Government-sponsored groups

Protecting proprietary information is a timely issue, but it is difficult. The event presented a list of common challenges faced when protecting information assets:

–Proprietary information is among the most valuable commodities, and attackers are doing everything in their power to steal as much of this information as possible.
–The risk of data breaches for organizations is high.
–New and emerging technologies create new risks and vulnerabilities.
— IT environments are becoming increasingly complex, making the management of them more expensive, difficult, and time consuming.
–There is a wider range of devices and access points, so businesses must proactively seek ways to combat the effects of this complexity.
–The rise in portable devices is creating more opportunities for data to “leak” from the business.
–The rise in Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) initiatives is generating new operational challenges and security problems.
–The rapidly expanding Internet of Things (IoT) has significantly increased the number of network connected things (e.g., HVAC systems, MRI machines, coffeemakers) that pose data security threats, many of which were inconceivable only a short time ago.
–The number of threats to corporate IT systems is on the rise.
–Malware is becoming more sophisticated.
–There is an increasing number of laws in this area, making information security an urgent priority.

Cary covered the entire gamut of challenges related to cyber fraud and data breaches ranging from legal issues, corporate espionage, social engineering, the use of social media, the bring-your-own-devices phenomenon, and the impact of cloud computing. The remaining portion of the event was devoted to addressing how enterprises can effectively respond when confronted by the challenges posed by these issues including breach response team building and breach prevention techniques like conducting security risk assessments, staff awareness training and the incident response plan.

When an organization experiences a data breach, management must respond in an appropriate and timely manner. During the initial response, time is critical. To help ensure that an organization responds to data breaches timely and efficiently, management should have an incident response plan in place that outlines how to respond to such issues. Timely responses can help prevent further data loss, fines, and customer backlash. An incident response plan outlines the actions an organization will take when data breaches occur. More specifically, a response plan should guide the necessary action when a data breach is reported or identified. Because every breach is different, a response plan should not outline how an organization should respond in every instance. Instead, a response plan should help the organization manage its response and create an environment to minimize risk and maximize the potential for success. In short, a response plan should describe the plan fundamentals that the organization can deploy on short notice.

Again, our sincere thanks go out to all involved in the success of this most worthwhile training event!

The Threat Within

Our Chapter’s May 16th and 17th upcoming training seminar on CYBER FRAUD AND DATA BREACHES emphasizes that corporate insiders represent one of the largest threats to an organization’s vital information resources. Insiders are individuals with access or inside knowledge about an organization, and such access or knowledge gives them the ability to exploit that organization’s vulnerabilities.  Insiders enjoy two critical openings in the security structure that put them in a position to exploit organizations’ information security vulnerabilities:

• the trust of their employers
• their access to facilities

Information theft by insiders is of special concern when employees leave an organization. Often, employees leave one organization for another, taking with them the knowledge of how their former organization operates, as well as its pricing policies, manufacturing methods, customers, and so on.

The ACFE tells us that insiders can be classified into three categories:

• Employees:  employee insiders are employees with rights and access associated with being employed by the organization.
• Associates: insider associates are people with physical access to an organization’s facilities, but they are not employees of the organization (e.g., contractors, cleaning crews).
• Affiliates: insider affiliates are individuals connected to pure insiders or insider associates (e.g., spouse, friend, client), and they can use the credentials of those insiders with whom they are connected to gain access to an organization’s systems or facilities.

There are many types of potential insider threats, and they can be organized into the following categories:

• Traitors
• Zealots
• Spies
• Browsers
• Well-intentioned insiders

A traitor is a legitimate insider who misuses his or her insider credentials to facilitate malicious acts.  When a trusted insider misuses his or her privileges to violate a security policy, s/he becomes a traitor. Below are some signs that an insider may be a traitor:

• Unusual change in work habits;
• Seeking out sensitive projects;
• Unusual work hours;
• Inconsistent security habits;
• Mocking security policies and procedures;
• Rationalizing inappropriate actions;
• Changes in lifestyle;
• Living beyond his or her means.

Zealots are trusted insiders with strong and uncompromising beliefs that clash with their organization’s perspectives on certain issues and subjects. Zealots pose a threat because they might exploit their access or inside knowledge to “reform” their organizations.
Zealots might attempt reform by:

• Exposing perceived shortcomings of the organization by making unauthorized disclosures of information to the public or by granting access to outsiders;
• Destroying information;
• Halting services or the production of products.

Zealots believe that their actions are just, no matter how much damage they cause.

A spy is an individual who is intentionally placed in a situation or organization to gather intelligence. A well-placed corporate spy can provide intelligence on a target organization’s product development, product launches, and organizational developments or changes.

Spies are common in foreign, business, and competitive intelligence efforts.

Browsers are insiders who are overly curious about information to or of which they do not need access, knowledge or possession to carry out their work duties. Their curiosity drives them to review data not intended for them.  Browsers might “browse” through information that they have no specific need to know until they find something interesting or something they can use. Browsers might use such information for personal gain, or they might use it for:

• Obtaining awards;
• Supporting decisions about promotions;
• Understanding contract negotiations;
• Gaining a personal advantage over their peers.

Browsers can be the hardest insider threat to identify, and they can be even harder to defeat.

The well-intentioned insider is an insider who, through ignorance or laziness, unintentionally fosters security breaches. Well-intentioned insiders might foster security breaches by:

• Disabling anti-virus software;
• Installing unapproved software;
• Leaving their workstations or facilities unlocked;
• Using easy-to-crack passwords;
• Failing to shred or destroy sensitive information.
While well-intentioned individuals might be stellar employees when it comes to work production, their ignorance or laziness regarding information security practices can be disastrous.

CFE’s need to understand that there are numerous motivations for insider attacks including:
• Work-related grievances;
• Financial gain;
• Challenge;
• Curiosity;
• Spying for competitors;
• Revenge;
• Ego;
• Opportunity;
• Ideology (e.g., “I don’t like the way my organization conducts business.”)

There are many ways our client organizations can combat insider threats. The most effective mitigation strategies recommended by the ACFE are:

• Create an insider threat program. To combat insider threats, management should form an insider threat team, create related policies, develop processes and implement controls, and regularly communicate those policies and controls across the organization.
• Work together across the organization. To be successful, efforts to combat insider threats should be communicated across the silos of management, IT, data owners, software engineers, general counsel, and human resources.
• Address employee privacy issues with general counsel. Because employees have certain privacy rights that can affect numerous aspects of the employer-employee relationship, and because such rights may stem from, and be protected by, various elements of the law, management should consult legal counsel whenever addressing actions impacting employee privacy.
• Pay close attention at times of resignation/ termination. Because leaving an organization is a key time of concern for insider threats, management should be cautious of underperforming employees, employees at risk of being terminated, and of employees who will likely resign.
• Educate managers regarding potential recruitment. Management should train subordinates to exercise due diligence in hiring prospective employees.
• Recognize concerning behaviors as a potential indicator. Management must train managers and all employees to recognize certain behaviors or characteristics that might indicate employees are committing or are at risk of committing a breach. Common behavioral red flags are living beyond one’s financial means, experiencing financial difficulties, having an uncommonly close relationship with vendors or customers, and demonstrating excessive control over their job responsibilities.
• Mitigate threats from trusted business partners. Management should subject their organization’s contractors and outsourced organizations to the same security controls, policies, and procedures to which they subject their own employees.
• Use current technologies differently. Most organizations have implemented technologies to detect network intrusions and other threats originating outside the network perimeter, and organizations with such technologies should use them to the extent possible to detect potential indicators of malicious insider behavior within the network.
• Focus on protecting the most valuable assets. Management should dedicate the most effort to securing its most valuable organizational assets and intellectual property against insider threats.
• Learn from past incidents. Past incidents of insider threats and abuse will suggest areas of vulnerability that insiders will likely exploit again.
Additionally:
• Focus on deterrence, not detection. In other words, create a culture that deters any aberrant behavior so that those who continue to practice that behavior stand out from the “noise” of normal business; focus limited investigative resources on those individuals.
• Know your people—know who your weak links are and who would be most likely to be a threat. Use human resources data to narrow down threats rather than looking for a single needle in a pile of needles.
• Identify information that is most likely to be valuable to someone else and protect it to a greater degree than the rest of your information.
• Monitor ingress and egress points for information (e.g., USB ports, printers, network boundaries).
• Baseline normal activity and look for anomalies.
Other measures organizations might consider taking to combat insider threats include:
• Educate employees as to what information is proprietary and confidential.
• Require that all employees and third-party vendors and contractors sign nondisclosure agreements; written agreements providing that all proprietary and confidential information learned during their relationship must be kept confidential and must not be disclosed to anyone, upon the commencement and termination of employment or contracts.
• Ensure that all an organization’s third-party vendors and contractors perform background checks on all third-party employees who will have access to the organization’s information systems.
• Prohibit employees, contractors, and trusted business partners from printing sensitive documents that are not required for business purposes.
• If possible, avoid connecting information systems to those of business partners.

Also, when possible, management should conduct exit interviews with departing employees. During an exit interview, the departing employee should be advised about the organization’s trade secrets and confidential information, as well as any obligation not to disclose or use such information for his or her own benefit or for the benefit of others without express written consent. Also, the employee should be given a form to sign stating that s/he was informed that any proprietary information should not be disclosed and that s/he agrees not to disclose any such information without consent.

Finally, when management terminates its relationship with an insider, it should immediately deactivate the insider’s access to company tools and resources.

Please consider joining us for at our May 16th and 17th Spring training event, Cyber Fraud and Data Breaches for 16 CPE credits!  You may register and pay on-line here!

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!

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.