#SecChat $1 million guarantee 12 Scams of Christmas access to live fraud resolution agents Acquisition Alex Thurber Android antivirus Apple botnet Channel Partners cloud security Compliance Consumer counter identity theft credit card fraud and protection credit fraud alerts credit monitoring credit monitoring and resolution critical infrastructure Cyber Security Mom cyberbullying Cybercrime cybermom data breach data center data center security Data Protection Dave DeWalt DLP Email & Web Security embedded encryption Endpoint Protection enterprise facebook fake anti-virus software Family Safety Friday Security Highlights global threat intelligence google government Hacktivism how to talk to kids how to talk to teens identity fraud identity fraud scams identity protection identity protection $1 million guarantee identity protection fraud identity protection surveillance identity surveillance identity theft identity theft expert identity theft fraud identity theft protection identity theft protection product Identity thieves and cybercriminals intel iphone kids online behavior lost wallet protection malware McAfee McAfee Channel McAfee Family Protection McAfee Identity Protection McAfee Initiative to Fight Cybercrime McAfee Labs McAfee security products Mid-Market Mobile mobile malware mobile security monitor credit and personal information Network Security online personal data protection online safety Operation Aurora PCI personal identity theft fraud personal information loss personal information protection phishing privacy proactive identity protection proactive identity surveillance Public Sector restore credit and personal identity Risk and Compliance scam scams scareware security smartphones social media social networking social networks spam Stuxnet twitter vulnerability Web 2.0 work with victim restore identity
|
|
Here’s a concept that might inflate everyone’s ego a little, as well as (hopefully) making them a little more wary: It’s not just CxOs whose names and info are valuable. It’s yours and mine, too.
In Italy, trojan spammers are sending emails which appear to be from lawyers, threatening legal action if the recipient doesn’t clean up their allegedly-infected machine. Of course, this email includes a “helpful link” to a removal tool which is, in reality, a trojan. The most notable thing here is that the email includes actual lawyers’ names and contact information, which is causing significant problems for the lawyers whose names have been used.
We’ve also received reports from Italy indicating people are getting similar emails, but from people who appear to be angry business partners, rather than from lawyers.
Miscreants have also taken to heart the figures regarding the lack of security awareness in smaller businesses. Small companies may feel that they’re too insignificant to be targeted, but their machines may actually be just as valuable as someone in a Fortune 500 company. Small businesses’ bandwidth is often better than a home user’s, their employees’ name and contact info can be used in schemes like this, they might be more apt to be hurt by Denial of Service attacks or extortion attempts, while they’re less apt to have trained or dedicated security staff.
Really, everyone’s data has a useful place in the internet criminal’s arsenal. Doesn’t that just warm the cockles of your heart?
So what do we take away from all this? Regardless of how urgent an email appears to be, it pays to double-check links and attachments with the apparent sender if you’re not expecting it. And to keep yourself from being an “apparent sender”, consider very carefully what information you make available on the internet. Do you need to post your employees’ name and phone numbers publicly or would something more general be feasible?
|
|
“Do you need to post your employees’ name and phone numbers publicly or would something more general be feasible?”
I can’t imagine NOT doing this. What is needed is for e-mail clients to start verifying the sending server — i.e. using SPF — and throwing up two levels of warning flags, the first being a “yellow” warning when the alleged sender’s domain has no SPF entry and the “red” warning being when the alleged sender’s domain’s SPF entry doesn’t match the sending server.
Once e-mail client software gets this “smart” it will really help.
Submit your own comments / message for this post