Yesterday, organizations around the world were hit by yet another ransomware attack.  Similar to the recent WannaCry attacks, the Petya attack works to encrypt documents and files and subsequently demands a ransom to unlock them.  Unlike WannaCry, it is believed that the Petya attack spreads internally through an organization (rather than across the Internet) using a vulnerability called “EternalBlue” in Microsoft Windows.  It is not yet clear who is behind this attack.  You will know if you are a victim of this attack if your machine reboots and you see the message pictured here, which indicates that the ransomware is encrypting your data.  Immediately after seeing this, turn off your machine, disconnect it from the internet, use forensic tools to recover any files not yet encrypted, and once done, reformat your hard drive and re-install the operating system, apps, and then your data from your latest backup.  If encryption completes before you are able to power down, do not pay the ransom.  It has been reported that the email address notifying the attacker of payment has been shut down, so there is no possible way to get the decryption key for the data after paying the ransom.

PT Security recently published a tweet showing the local “kill switch” for Petya.  From an organizational standpoint, ensure that all Microsoft patches are installed, consider installing protection programs to combat against potential attack, and complete routine backups of data.

On June 13, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security published an alert regarding malicious cyber activity by the North Korean government, known as Hidden Cobra.  Per the DHS and FBI, Hidden Cobra uses cyber operations to the government and military’s advantage by exfiltrating data and causing disruptive cyber intrusions.  Potential impacts of a Hidden Cobra attach can include “temporary or permanent loss of sensitive or proprietary information, disruption to regular operations, financial losses incurred to restore systems and files, and potential harm to an organization’s reputation.”  The DHS publication outlines ways to detect and protect against the malicious activity and suggests that organizations work to upgrade and/or remove older Microsoft operating systems and older versions of Adobe Flash Player, Microsoft Siverlight, and Hangul Word Processor.  Further, organizations should review and block all IP addresses listed in the “indicators of compromise” list provided, review and enforce incident response plans, and contact the DHS and FBI to report any potential Hidden Cobra intrusions. The full DHS publication can be found here.  We suggest that IT departments carefully review the full alert and take any steps possible to mitigate risk to the organization.

The 2017 edition of The Legal 500 United States recommends Seyfarth Shaw’s Global Privacy & Security Team as one of the best in the country for Cyber Law (including data protection and privacy). In addition, based on feedback from corporate counsel, the co-chairs of Seyfarth’s group, Scott A. Carlson and John P. Tomaszewski, and Seyfarth partners Karla Grossenbacher (head of Seyfarth’s National Workplace Privacy Team) and Richard D. Lutkus were recommended in the editorial. Richard Lutkus is also listed as one of 14 “Next Generation Lawyers.”

The Legal 500 United States is an independent guide providing comprehensive coverage on legal services and is widely referenced for its definitive judgment of law firm capabilities.

On May 11, President Trump signed Executive Order (EO) on Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure. This is a significant development for U.S. cybersecurity as it represents a concrete call to action for the government to modernize its information technology, beef up its cybersecurity capabilities, protect our country’s critical infrastructure from cyberattacks, and ensure the overall cybersecurity and privacy of the internet for generations to come. The EO also stresses the importance of the growth and sustainment of a workforce that is skilled in cybersecurity as the foundation for achieving U.S. objectives in cyberspace.

This EO was much anticipated. In fact, earlier this year, we, along with many other internet sources, reported that President Trump was expected to sign soon EO on Strengthening U.S. Cyber Security and Capabilities. The “leaked” draft of the expected EO we examined at that time was never signed, and the actual, signed EO on cybersecurity bears little resemblance to the version that circulated on the internet in February.

The signed EO requires various agencies to prepare a number of reports on the current status of cybersecurity and risk management and to present plans for improvement and further development. Because there are tight deadlines associated with these reports, the agencies are already at work on conducting the necessary analysis and developing path forward. With all its robustness, the EO, however, represents a natural progression in strengthening our national cybersecurity and builds upon previous federal efforts. Indeed, the EO expressly ties several of its mandates to the various cybersecurity orders signed by President Obama.

Scott Carlson, the founder and Chair of Seyfarth Shaw’s eDiscovery and Information Governance practice, will examine this EO along with other current cybersecurity issues facing U.S. organizations in further detail during the First 100 & Beyond: Seyfarth’s Strategy & Planning Summit For Businesses, an event that will be held at Seyfarth Shaw’s Chicago office on May 25, 2017. There is no cost to attend this event, but registration is required. Please consider joining us for this important discussion.

Recently, a widespread global ransomware attack has struck hospitals, communication, and other types of companies and government offices around the world, seizing control of affected computers until the victims pay a ransom.  This widespread ransomware campaign has affected various organizations with reports of tens of thousands of infections in as many as 99 countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, Taiwan, France, and Japan.  The software can run in as many as 27 different languages.  The latest version of this ransomware variant, known as WannaCryWCry, or Wanna Decryptor, was discovered the morning of May 12, 2017, by an independent security researcher and has spread rapidly.

Continue Reading WannaCry Ransomware Attack: What Happened and How to Address

shutterstock_506771554Another week, another well-concocted phishing scam.  The most recent fraudulent activity targeted businesses that use Workday, though this is not a breach or vulnerability in Workday itself.  Specifically, the attack involves a well-crafted spam email that is sent to employees purporting to be from the CFO, CEO, or Head of HR or similar.   Sometimes the emails include the name, title, and other personal information of the “sender” that we believe might be harvested from LinkedIn or other business databases.  The email asks employees to use a link in the phishing email or attached PDF to log into a fake Workday website that looks legitimate.  The threat actors who run the fake Workday website then use the user name and password to log into the Workday account as the employee and change their direct deposit bank/ACH information to another bank, relatable Green Dot, or similar credit card.

The fraud is typically only discovered when the employees contact HR inquiring as to why they did not receive their direct deposit funds.  Unfortunately it appears that spam filters and other controls are failing to prevent this email from infiltrating the organization’s network.

In order to prevent this from happening to your organization, Workday has posted several “best practice” tips on their customer portal.  The most impactful mitigation techniques include enabling and enforcing two factor authentication on your organization’s Workday instance, and changing your Workday settings to force administrative approval upon employee requests for direct deposit account change.  Both of these will help secure your Workday environment and avoid employee loss of paychecks.   Finally, always remember to train employees on fraudulent email identification through training and security drills/tests.

 

On January 5, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued for permanent injunction a Taiwan-based computer networking equipment manufacturer D-Link Corporation and its U.S. subsidiary, alleging that D-Link’s inadequate security measures left its wireless routers and IP cameras used to monitor private areas of homes and businesses vulnerable to hackers, thereby compromising U.S. consumers’ privacy.

In the complaint filed in the Northern District of California, Federal Trade Commission v. D-Link Systems Corp. et al., Case Number 3:17cv39, the FTC alleged that D-Link failed to take reasonable steps to secure its routers and Internet Protocol (IP) cameras, potentially compromising sensitive consumer information, including live video and audio feeds from D-Link IP cameras. The FTC’s allegation of consumer injury is limited to the statement that due to the lack of security, consumers “are likely to suffer substantial injury” and that, unless stopped by an injunction, D-Link is “likely to injure consumers and harm the public interest.”

In seeking the requested relief, the FTC is relying on its powers under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). The FTC’s Section 5 powers have largely gone unchallenged by companies subject to enforcement action until Wyndham hotels, which came under investigation after it suffered a series of data breaches, tried to curtail the FTC’s jurisdiction in 2015. That challenge failed when the Third Circuit held that the FTC did, in fact, have the authority to regulate cybersecurity practices under the unfairness prong of Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Continue Reading Lessons from the FTC’s First Enforcement Action Against an IoT Company

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), has announced a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) civil money penalty of $3,217,000.00 against Children’s Medical Center of Dallas (Children’s), a pediatric hospital that is part of Children’s Health, the seventh largest pediatric health care provider in the nation. OCR based this penalty on its finding that Children’s failed to comply with HIPAA Security Rule over many years and that Children’s impermissibly disclosed unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) when it suffered two data breaches that were reportable to OCR.

The Breaches

  • On January 18, 2010, Children’s reported to OCR the loss of an unencrypted, non-password protected BlackBerry device at an airport on November 19, 2009. The device contained the ePHI of approximately 3,800 individuals.
  • On July 5, 2013, Children’s reported to OCR the theft of an unencrypted laptop from its premises sometime between April 4 and April 9, 2013. The device contained the ePHI of approximately 2,462 individuals.

Because Children’s devices were unencrypted, Children’s was obligated to report their loss, along with the unsecured ePHI they contained, to the HHS. Had Children’s devices been encrypted, it could have taken advantage of the “safe harbor” rule, pursuant to which covered entities and business associates are not required to report a breach of information that is not “unsecured.”

The Investigation

  • OCR’s investigation revealed that, in violation of HIPAA Rules, Children’s (1) failed to implement risk management plans, contrary to prior external recommendations to do so, and (2) knowingly and over the course of several years, failed to encrypt, or alternatively protect, all of its laptops, work stations, mobile devices, and removable storage media.
    • OCR’s investigation established that Children’s knew about the risk of maintaining unencrypted ePHI on its devices as far back as 2007.
    • Despite this knowledge, Children’s issued unencrypted BlackBerry devices to nurses and allowed its workforce members to continue using unencrypted laptops and other mobile devices until 2013.

The Takeaways Continue Reading Key Takeaways from OCR’s Latest HIPAA Fine: Hospital to Pay $3.2 Million for Its Cybersecurity Violations

President Trump is expected to sign soon Executive Order on Strengthening U.S. Cyber Security and Capabilities.   Reports about a “leaked draft” of the Executive Order on Cybersecurity surfaced on the Internet a few days ago, along with predictions that the Order will be signed on January 31.  The Order is yet to be signed and the publicized draft may undergo some changes.  The available draft orders three reviews:

  • Review of Cyber Vulnerabilities, which asks, within 60 days of the date of the Order, for a report of initial recommendations for the enhanced protection of the most critical civilian Federal Government, public, and private sector infrastructure.
  • Review of Cyber Adversaries, which asks, within 60 days of the date of the Order, for a first report on the identities, capabilities, and vulnerabilities of the principal U.S. cyber adversaries.
  • U.S. Cyber Capabilities Review, which asks for identification of an initial set of capabilities needing improvement to adequately protect U.S. critical infrastructure, based on the results of the other two Reviews.  As part of this review, the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security are directed to gather and review information from the Department of Education “regarding computer science, mathematics, and cyber security education from primary through higher education to understand the full scope of U.S. efforts to educate and train the workforce of the future.”  The Secretary of Defense is also directed to make recommendations “in order to best position the U.S. educational system to maintain its competitive advantage into the future.”

Continue Reading President Trump to Issue Executive Order on Cybersecurity

A Finnish web developer discovered that “autofill profiles” now offered  on certain browsers provides hackers with a new phishing vector.  Autofill profiles allow users to create a profile containing preset personal information that they might usually enter on web forms.  When a user fills in information for some simple text boxes, the autofill system will input other profile-based information into any other text boxes on the page, even when they are not visible on the page to the user and, from there, the hacker harvests additional autofilled personal information without the user’s knowledge.

Autofill profiles are not to be confused with form field autofilling behavior, which allows the user to fill in one form field at a time with data previously entered in those fields, while autofill profiles in browsers enable users to fill in an entire web form with one click.   Continue Reading Warn Your Clients: Browser Autofill Can Steal Their Personal Details in New Phishing Vulnerability