DOCSLIB.ORG

Scams and Spam to Avoid on Facebook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Scams and Spam to Avoid on Facebook Security Response in association with: Scams and Spam to Avoid on Facebook Candid Wüest Principal Software Engineer foreword by the Facebook Security Team Foreword Contents At Facebook, we work hard to protect the people that use our service. We in- Foreword ............................................................ 1 vest in equipment, develop proprietary tools, create innovative security fea- Summary ............................................................ 2 tures and devote hundreds of employees around the world to keep you and Introduction ...................................................... 2 your data safe. But we can’t do this alone, which is why we worked on a guide Attack types ....................................................... 2 with our friends at Symantec to educate people on the most prevalent threats Like/share-baiting ........................................ 3 we are seeing and the best ways for users to keep their data safe while online. Like clickjacking ........................................... 4 We process a huge amount of content to protect the people on Facebook – Malicious (iFrame) application ................... 5 every single day we vet over 26 billion pieces of content and 2 trillion link Self-XSS copy/paste attacks ....................... 6 clicks. But with more than 800 million people visiting our site each month Tagging ......................................................... 8 and more than 400 million visiting every day, Facebook has become an Phishing ....................................................... 8 ever more attractive target for spammers and scammers. That’s why more Hoax .............................................................. 9 than three hundred Facebook security engineers and hundreds of user op- Various scams and spams............................ 9 erations personnel work around the clock to keep you and your data safe. Cleaning up ........................................................ 9 Remove the offending posts ........................ 9 By embracing advanced technology, our engineers work to ensure that Remove offending applications ................. 10 using Facebook is a secure experience. We have several internal sys- Change your password ............................... 10 tems to discover, disarm, and disable threats. However, not all the secu- Settings guide .................................................. 10 rity mechanisms operate behind the scenes and we want to empower ev- Privacy settings .......................................... 11 eryone to control their Facebook experience by using the power of social Account settings ........................................ 12 connections to keep you and your data safe on the site. Some of these Conclusion........................................................ 13 are on for everyone by default, and others allow people to choose what level of security best fits their lifestyle. We encourage people to visit the Facebook Security Page or our Help Center to learn about these tools. But even with all of these resources, we still need your help to keep our site safe. We all have a part to play in keeping the Web safe, and making sure we only click or share links we trust is a huge part of that. Please read the guide and let your friends know what you’ve found out. Thanks again to Symantec for their expertise and efforts in helping keep the people who use Facebook safe. Scams and Spam to Avoid on Facebook Security Response Summary Social networks are an inherent part of today’s Internet. With more than 800 million registered accounts, Face- book is the largest social network in use at the moment. For many people it has become the primary medium for sharing ideas and interacting with friends. It is also becoming a booming attack ground for malware authors and scammers. By taking advantage of the users’ trust in their network of relationships, they are spreading malicious code and sending spam messages. Most of the attacks that we currently see use social engineering tricks to spread their messages to thousands of users. Besides reposting spam messages to friends, this can lead to scam surveys or malicious sites. The following paper will illustrate and discuss the most prevalent issues and threats targeting the Facebook network today, as well as provide help in choosing the right configuration settings. Introduction This paper discusses different aspects of both spam and scam attacks that we have observed in Facebook, rang- ing from advertisement spam to redirecting lures for drive-by malware sites. The focus will be on scams spread- ing in the social network rather than attacks against the framework implementation or privacy leaks. Facebook is working hard to combat these issues, with a dedicated security team focused on eliminating attacks in the social network and their self-created Facebook Immune System (FIS). They are constantly adding new fea- tures and improving security settings. Therefore some of the examples mentioned in this paper no longer work, having been mitigated by such changes. None of the discussed attacks are Facebook-specific, and could happen in a similar form on other social networks. Attack types The attacks usually start with a method to grab the user’s attention. This is often done with a status message update on a friend’s Timeline, direct chat messages, or calendar event invitations. Newer attacks make use of IP geo-location services, bringing in localized context such as the visitor’s city name. Other scams will display your real name and some of your friend’s names to make the bait appear more credible. Clicking the link, or interact- ing with the bait page, leads to another site that contains the payload of the attack. In 2011 Facebook started to use third-party services like the Web of Trust URL reputation service to analyze any direct link leaving the facebook.com domain. This means that if the scam is already well-known and classified, the URI will likely be on Web of Trust’s blacklist and Facebook will warn the user when clicking on it. According to Facebook, they block 220 million messages with malicious links every day. Unfortunately these scams vary the URLs frequently so that often there is no blocking rating for new scams when they first appear. Some of the newer services use heuris- tics to block even previously unknown malicious links, but there will always be some URLs that are not blocked. In order to bypass these filters, we have even seen attackers use cross-site scripting vulnerabilities on trusted domains to forward to malicious pages. Figure 1 The themes meant to trick users are often Outgoing link blocking reused. Popular ones include: • Find out who viewed your profile or de- leted you from their account. • Some shocking video or image of some person or accident. • Get free points for online games or gift cards for various shops. Most attacks discussed here require the user to be logged into his or her account. Since many users are permanently logged into their accounts, or at least of the time when seeing the bait messages, this pre- requisite is usually fulfilled. We encourage users to report spam and scam messages to Facebook through the reporting button. This helps preventing the scams from propagating further. Symantec will also work with Facebook to detect and alert users to potentially malicious URLs on the site, helping to provide a safer experience for members. Page 2 Scams and Spam to Avoid on Facebook Security Response Like/share-baiting Figure 2 Manual Like scam Type: Light social engineering Result: User liking a link This is the most commonly encountered type of scam at the moment. The user is asked to manually like or share the rogue site in order to get access to some promised content. For example, the user has to Like the page before an enticing video is shown. This is the identical behavior that any legit brand site can use as well, so it is very hard to distinguish between malicious and legit use. Obviously the scenarios are endless where the user is asked to Like a page before he or she can participate at a contest or see a video. In the same category is the variation where the mali- cious page asks the user to post a given message at least five times on Facebook before access to the special content is given. Figure 3 Next, the user is often forwarded to a cost-per-action Manual Share and survey request (CPA) survey before the promised content is shown. These surveys are not malicious per-se and can also be used on legitimate sites. Some of the external pages mimic the look and feel of Facebook to increase their credibility. Here the scammers are misusing them, through affiliate services, in order to get clicks or il- licit participation from the user. They often mask the survey as a mandatory “security test”, which they are not. Most of these surveys are free to fill out but might require some personal information to be shared. For every user that fills out a survey the author behind it gets commission money which can be from $0.50–$20, depending on the required work from the user. We have also seen links to ringtone subscription services and similar expensive premium content. Of course normal banner ads can also be used by the attacker to earn money. Figure 4 CPA survey request Page 3 Scams and Spam to Avoid on Facebook Security Response Another variation of this type of scam lures the user with free gift cards for online shops or restaurants. In order to receive the voucher the user is asked to share the site with his or her friends and provide some personal infor- mation. The fine print states that the user has to subscribe to a few sponsored offers in order to get the voucher. Sometimes there actually is a real gift card or voucher involved in the end, but only after expensive subscriptions are accepted. Recommendations: Users should be vigilant when asked to like links or sites in order to get access to some content. When asked to provide personal information or fill out surveys, they should be skeptical and rethink if it is worth the time and risk. Users should be aware that the subscribed services are often not free and that the personal information handed out might be used for further Figure 5 advertisement.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Clickjacking
    Security Now! Transcript of Episode #168 Page 1 of 18 Transcript of Episode #168 ClickJacking Description: Steve and Leo discuss yet another challenge to surfing safely in the web world: Known as "ClickJacking," or more formally as "UI Redressing," this class of newly popular threats tricks web users into performing web-based actions they don't intend by leading them to believe they are doing something else entirely. High quality (64 kbps) mp3 audio file URL: http://media.GRC.com/sn/SN-168.mp3 Quarter size (16 kbps) mp3 audio file URL: http://media.GRC.com/sn/sn-168-lq.mp3 INTRO: Netcasts you love, from people you trust. This is TWiT. Leo Laporte: Bandwidth for Security Now! is provided by AOL Radio at AOL.com/podcasting. This is Security Now! with Steve Gibson, Episode 168 for October 30, 2008: Clickjacking. It's time for Security Now!, the show where we cover everything you'd ever want to know about security. And we do it with a guy who is the king, really, as far as I'm concerned, the man who discovered spyware, named spyware, wrote some of the most used security utilities out there, including ShieldsUP!, Mr. Steve Gibson of GRC.com. Hi, Steve. Steve Gibson: Yes, in fact sometimes we're discussing things that you'd rather wish weren't the case. I mean... Leo: Well, lately it's been kind of bleak because it's like, there's bad stuff, and there doesn't really seem like there's any cure. Steve: Yes, that's true.
    [Show full text]
  • A Semi-Automated Security Advisory System to Resist Cyber-Attack in Social Networks
    A Semi-Automated Security Advisory System to Resist Cyber-attack in Social Networks Samar Muslah Albladi and George R S Weir University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK {samar.albladi; george.weir}@strath.ac.uk Abstract. Social networking sites often witness various types of social engi- neering (SE) attacks. Yet, limited research has addressed the most severe types of social engineering in social networks (SNs). The present study in- vestigates the extent to which people respond differently to different types of attack in a social network context and how we can segment users based on their vulnerability. In turn, this leads to the prospect of a personalised security advisory system. 316 participants have completed an online-ques- tionnaire that includes a scenario-based experiment. The study result re- veals that people respond to cyber-attacks differently based on their de- mographics. Furthermore, people’s competence, social network experience, and their limited connections with strangers in social networks can decrease their likelihood of falling victim to some types of attacks more than others. Keywords: Advisory System, Social Engineering, Social Networks. 1 Introduction Individuals and organisations are becoming increasingly dependent on working with computers, accessing the World Wide Web and, more importantly, sharing data through virtual communication. This makes cyber-security one of today’s greatest issues. Pro- tecting people and organisations from being targeted by cybercriminals is becoming a priority for industry and academia [1]. This is due to the huge potential damage that could be associated with losing valuable data and documents in such attacks. Previous research focuses on identifying factors that influence people’s vulnerability to cyber-attack [2] as the human has been characterised as the weakest link in infor- mation security research.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Fraud and Internet Banking: Threats and Countermeasures
    Report Financial Fraud and Internet Banking: Threats and Countermeasures By François Paget, McAfee® Avert® Labs Report Financial Fraud and Internet Banking: Threats and Countermeasures Table of Contents Some Figures 3 U.S. Federal Trade Commission Statistics 3 CyberSource 4 Internet Crime Complaint Center 4 In Europe 5 The Many Faces of Fraud 6 Small- and large-scale identity theft 7 Carding and skimming 8 Phishing and pharming 8 Crimeware 9 Money laundering 10 Mules 10 Virtual casinos 11 Pump and dump 12 Nigerian advance fee fraud (419 fraud) 12 Auctions 14 Online shopping 16 Anonymous payment methods 17 Protective Measures 18 Scoring 18 Europay, MasterCard, and Visa (EMV) standard 18 PCI-DSS 19 Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Transport Secured Layer (TLS) protocols 19 SSL extended validation 20 3-D Secure technology 21 Strong authentication and one-time password devices 22 Knowledge-based authentication 23 Email authentication 23 Conclusion 24 About McAfee, Inc. 26 Report Financial Fraud and Internet Banking: Threats and Countermeasures Financial fraud has many faces. Whether it involves swindling, debit or credit card fraud, real estate fraud, drug trafficking, identity theft, deceptive telemarketing, or money laundering, the goal of cybercriminals is to make as much money as possible within a short time and to do so inconspicuously. This paper will introduce you to an array of threats facing banks and their customers. It includes some statistics and descriptions of solutions that should give readers—whether they are responsible for security in a financial organization or a customer—an overview of the current situation. Some Figures U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Clickjacking: Attacks and Defenses
    Clickjacking: Attacks and Defenses Lin-Shung Huang Alex Moshchuk Helen J. Wang Carnegie Mellon University Microsoft Research Microsoft Research [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Stuart Schechter Collin Jackson Microsoft Research Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] [email protected] Abstract such as a “claim your free iPad” button. Hence, when Clickjacking attacks are an emerging threat on the web. the user “claims” a free iPad, a story appears in the user’s In this paper, we design new clickjacking attack variants Facebook friends’ news feed stating that she “likes” the using existing techniques and demonstrate that existing attacker web site. For ease of exposition, our description clickjacking defenses are insufficient. Our attacks show will be in the context of web browsers. Nevertheless, the that clickjacking can cause severe damages, including concepts and techniques described are generally applica- compromising a user’s private webcam, email or other ble to all client operating systems where display is shared private data, and web surfing anonymity. by mutually distrusting principals. We observe the root cause of clickjacking is that an Several clickjacking defenses have been proposed and attacker application presents a sensitive UI element of a deployed for web browsers, but all have shortcomings. target application out of context to a user (such as hiding Today’s most widely deployed defenses rely on frame- the sensitive UI by making it transparent), and hence the busting [21, 37], which disallows a sensitive page from user is tricked to act out of context. To address this root being framed (i.e., embedded within another web page).
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study on Clickjacking Attack and Location Leakage
    International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 7, July-2014 190 ISSN 2229-5518 A Case Study on Clickjacking Attack and Location Leakage Lim Chin Nei, Loo Yow Cherng, Manmeet Mahinderjit Singh Abstract— The advanced in technologies such as mobile devices, GSP, WIFI, and 3G has encourage the information sharing using social media. The large amount of information shared on social media often lead to security issues which are unaware by the users. This information may include sensitive information such as a person’s name, location, relationship status and many more and can be dangerous if is put in a wrong hand. In this research, we provide a review on the type of social media ad what are the current threat in social media. We then focus on two specific threat namely clickjacking and location leakage, and proposed a solution for each of it as well as the evaluation of the solution. Index Terms—Security; Social media; Attack; Defense Machine, Clickjacking, Location leakage —————————— —————————— 1 INTRODUCTION This rapid shift of technologies in this era of informa- media. With this large amount of information shared online, tion and communication has dramatically boosted the usage the social media actually has become a perfect platform for of the social media. With the advanced in technologies such hackers to find their victims. The information shared using as smart mobile devices, GPS, WIFI, and 3G services, user social media often contain sensitive and private information were able to connect to the internet regardless of time and which can be easily compromised by the hackers.
    [Show full text]
  • Cisco 2017 Midyear Cybersecurity Report
    Cisco 2017 Midyear Cybersecurity Report 1 Executive Summary Table of Contents Executive Summary ..........................................................03 Vulnerabilities update: Rise in attacks following key disclosures ................................................................ 47 Major Findings ..................................................................05 Don’t let DevOps technologies leave the Introduction ......................................................................07 business exposed ............................................................ 50 Attacker Behavior .............................................................09 Organizations not moving fast enough to patch Exploit kits: Down, but not likely out ................................. 09 known Memcached server vulnerabilities ......................... 54 How defender behavior can shift attackers’ focus ...........11 Malicious hackers head to the cloud to shorten the path to top targets ..................................................... 56 Web attack methods provide evidence of a mature Internet ............................................................. 12 Unmanaged infrastructure and endpoints leave organizations at risk ......................................................... 59 Web block activity around the globe ................................ 13 Security Challenges and Opportunities Spyware really is as bad as it sounds............................... 14 for Defenders ...................................................................61
    [Show full text]
  • Comparisons of Machine Learning Techniques for Detecting Malicious Webpages ⇑ H.B
    Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 1166–1177 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Expert Systems with Applications journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa Comparisons of machine learning techniques for detecting malicious webpages ⇑ H.B. Kazemian , S. Ahmed Intelligent Systems Research Centre, School of Computing, London Metropolitan University, United Kingdom article info abstract Article history: This paper compares machine learning techniques for detecting malicious webpages. The conventional Available online 16 September 2014 method of detecting malicious webpages is going through the black list and checking whether the web- pages are listed. Black list is a list of webpages which are classified as malicious from a user’s point of Keywords: view. These black lists are created by trusted organizations and volunteers. They are then used by modern K-Nearest Neighbor web browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc. However, black list is ineffective because of Support Vector Machine the frequent-changing nature of webpages, growing numbers of webpages that pose scalability issues Naive Bayes and the crawlers’ inability to visit intranet webpages that require computer operators to log in as authen- Affinity Propagation ticated users. In this paper therefore alternative and novel approaches are used by applying machine K-Means Supervised and unsupervised learning learning algorithms to detect malicious webpages. In this paper three supervised machine learning techniques such as K-Nearest Neighbor, Support Vector Machine and Naive Bayes Classifier, and two unsupervised machine learning techniques such as K-Means and Affinity Propagation are employed. Please note that K-Means and Affinity Propagation have not been applied to detection of malicious web- pages by other researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • UI Redressing and Clickjacking: About Click Fraud and Data Theft
    Introduction Attack vectors Counteractive measures Conclusion and outlook UI Redressing and Clickjacking: About click fraud and data theft Marcus Niemietz [email protected] Ruhr-University Bochum Chair for Network and Data Security 25th of November 2011 Marcus Niemietz, RUB @Zeronights UI Redressing and Clickjacking Introduction Attack vectors Counteractive measures Conclusion and outlook Short and crisp details about me Studying \IT-Security/Information Technology", RUB \Computer Science", Distance University Hagen B.Sc. in \IT-Security/Information Technology" Books Authentication Web Pages with Selenium ≥Feb. 2012: Clickjacking und UI-Redressing International speaker Work: RUB, Pixelboxx, ISP and IT-Security, Freelancer (trainings, penetration tests) Twitter: @mniemietz Marcus Niemietz, RUB @Zeronights UI Redressing and Clickjacking Introduction Attack vectors Counteractive measures Conclusion and outlook Contents 1 Introduction UI redressing Clickjacking 2 Attack vectors UI redressing Round up Clickjacking Tool 3 Counteractive measures Frame busting Busting frame busting Clickjacking statistics 4 Conclusion and outlook Marcus Niemietz, RUB @Zeronights UI Redressing and Clickjacking Introduction Attack vectors UI redressing Counteractive measures Clickjacking Conclusion and outlook Introduction Google Inc. can generate a profit of over $8.5 billion in 2010 Interesting for commercial companies to offer web applications shopping banking share status messages New attacks available that can bypass existing protection mechanisms CSRF
    [Show full text]
  • Threat Landscape Report – 1St Quarter 2018
    TLP-AMBER Threat Landscape Report – 1st Quarter 2018 (FINAL) V1.0 – 10/04/2018 This quarterly report summarises the most significant direct cyber threats to EU institutions, bodies, and agencies (EU-I or 'Constituents') in Part I, the development of cyber-threats on a broader scale in Part II, and recent technical trends in Part III. KEY FINDINGS Direct Threats • In Europe, APT28 / Sofacy threat actor (likely affiliated to Russia military intelligence GRU) targeted government institutions related to foreign affairs and attendees of a military conference. Another threat actor, Turla (likely affiliated to Russia’s security service FSB) executed a cyber-operation against foreign affairs entities in a European country. • A spear-phishing campaign that targeted European foreign ministries in the end of 2017 was attributed to a China-based threat actor (Ke3chang) which has a long track record of targeting EU institutions (since 2011). As regards cyber-criminality against EU institutions, attempts to deliver banking trojans are stable, ransomware activities are still in decline and cryptojacking on the rise. Phishing lures involve generic matters (’invoice’, ‘payment’, ‘purchase’, ‘wire transfer’, ‘personal banking’, ‘job application’) and more specific ones (foreign affairs issues, European think tanks matters, energy contracts, EU delegation, EU watch keeper). Almost all EU-I are affected by credential leaks (email address | password) on pastebin-like websites. Several credential- harvesting attempts have also been detected. Attackers keep attempting to lure EU-I staff by employing custom methods such as spoofed EU-I email addresses or weaponisation of EU-I documents. Broader Threats • Critical infrastructure. In the energy sector, the US authorities have accused Russian actors of targeting critical infrastructure (including nuclear) for several years and are expecting this to continue in 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting Malicious Campaigns in Obfuscated Javascript with Scalable Behavioral Analysis
    Detecting malicious campaigns in obfuscated JavaScript with scalable behavioral analysis 1st Oleksii Starov 2nd Yuchen Zhou 3rd Jun Wang Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Modern security crawlers and firewall solutions for malicious scripts [4], [10], [13]. However, proposed sys- have to analyze millions of websites on a daily basis, and tems usually require additional instrumentation and resources significantly more JavaScript samples. At the same time, fast that are unsuitable for near real-time analysis on a large static approaches, such as file signatures and hash matching, often are not enough to detect advanced malicious campaigns, population of URLs. Moreover, such approaches use machine i.e., obfuscated, packed, or randomized scripts. As such, low- learning models, which must be trained and calibrated to overhead yet efficient dynamic analysis is required. minimize false positives. In contrast, there is lack of research In the current paper we describe behavioral analysis after in terms of lightweight behavioral detection methods and indi- executing all the scripts on web pages, similarly to how real cators of dynamic script execution that conclusively determine browsers do. Then, we apply light “behavioral signatures” to the malicious behavior. To the best of our knowledge, we are the collected dynamic indicators, such as global variables declared during runtime, popup messages shown to the user, established first to present a systematic case-study on detecting modern WebSocket connections. Using this scalable method for a month, malicious campaigns with such scalable dynamic analysis. we enhanced the coverage of a commercial URL filtering product In this paper, we describe behavioral analysis that exe- by detecting 8,712 URLs with intrusive coin miners.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Security Threat Report
    INTERNET SECURITY THREAT REPORT 2011 Trends Volume 17 Published April 2012 INTERNET SECURITY THREAT REPORT Paul Wood Mathew Nisbet Executive Editor Malware Data Analyst Manager, Cyber Security Intelligence Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Nicholas Johnston Gerry Egan Sr. Software Engineer Sr. Director, Product Management Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Bhaskar Krishnappa Kevin Haley Sr. Software Engineer Director, Product Management Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Irfan Asrar Tuan-Khanh Tran Security Response Manager Group Product Manager Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Sean Hittel Orla Cox Principal Software Engineer Sr. Manager, Security Operations Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Eric Chien Hon Lau Technical Director Manager, Development Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Eric Park Candid Wueest Sr. Business Intelligence Analyst Principal Software Engineer Anti-Spam Engineering Security Technology and Response Mathew Maniyara David McKinney Security Response Analyst Principal Threat Analyst Anti-Fraud Response Security Technology and Response Olivier Thonnard Tony Millington Sr. Research Engineer Associate Software Engineer Symantec Research Laboratories Security Technology and Response Pierre-Antoine Vervier Benjamin Nahorney Network Systems Engineer Senior Information Developer Symantec Research Laboratories Security Technology and Response
    [Show full text]
  • THE SMALL BUSINESS GUIDE to Cybersecurity FILE EDIT VIEW HISTORY BOOKMARKS TOOLS WINDOW HELP
    FILE EDIT VIEW HISTORY BOOKMARKS TOOLS WINDOW HELP THE SMALL BUSINESS GUIDE TO Cybersecurity FILE EDIT VIEW HISTORY BOOKMARKS TOOLS WINDOW HELP o you think cybercriminals you’ll learn about the biggest cybersecurity risks Dare too busy targeting the facing small businesses, the 3 most common cyberthreats to watch out for, how to secure your Photo Courtesy likes of Capital One, Citrix and business, and how to respond to a data breach. Facebook to bother with your Zimniy small business? Think again. Cybercrime Grows During /Shutterstock Some 76% of cyberattacks occur at businesses COVID-19 Crisis with under 100 employees. Cybercriminals know The FBI reports that instances of cybercrime small businesses tend to be easy targets, and appeared to grow as much as 300% since the that accessing a small business’s computer beginning of the coronavirus pandemic! The networks often gives them entrée to client and Bureau’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) vendor networks, too. is receiving between 3,000-4,000 cybersecurity For a small business the cost of a data breach complaints a day, up from an average of 1,000 per can be devastating. The average cyberattack day before the pandemic hit. costs smaller companies an average $3,533 per employee. It takes an average 206 days to As America’s daily activities increasingly identify a risk and another 73 days to contain it, moving online due to stay-at-home orders, the making the life cycle opportunities for cybercriminals grew due to: of a data breach ● Employees, new to remote work, who were unaware of 279 days.
    [Show full text]