Read this article carefully. It appears to be a discussion of how a bank survived a cyber attack and is working to become stronger through lessons learned. The article discussed how preventative controls limited the attack and mitigated the losses. It even discusses two new lines of defense the bank intends to deploy – reaching out to the international community for guidance, and reviewing current cybersecurity frameworks to improve internal processes. What is buried in the last lines of the article is the scariest piece of information about the bank that is largely overlooked. The current existing cybersecurity regulations for the bank dates to 1993. Yes, you read that correctly – 1993.
Due diligence is not revisiting your cybersecurity plan once every couple of decades. Almost every modern security framework discusses at least an annual review with additional reviews any time a new, significant threat is discovered or when a significant change is deployed within the organization. Kudos to Chile for taking steps to modernize, but it never should have taken this long.
This is a fantastic read about the pitfalls of low cost identity management and the use of static personal data. It also provides a unique view into the relatively small world of core banking systems. Kudos to Mr. Krebs.
This is a very interesting thought exercise and is relevant to both banks and other business entities. Consider the impact of a smartphone in your environment. Ponder the number of tools and resources it presents its owner, especially if that owner has a malicious intent.
This headline will definitely grab your attention. Any time banks are in fear of imminent fraud or attack, we should all take notice. The debate at hand is whether the cyber criminals are very good at their jobs, or did Swift technicians simply leave weak security configurations in place.