DOCSLIB.ORG

Technological Crime Advisory Board

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technological Crime Advisory Board TECHNOLOGICAL CRIME ADVISORY BOARD CATHERINE 100 North Carson Street JAMES D.EARL CORTEZ MASTO Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 Executive Director Attorney General Telephone (775) 684-1115 Fax (775) 684-1108 Chair E-Mail: [email protected] ADVISORY BOARD Bill: SB 267 CATHERINE Position: Support CORTEZ MASTO Attorney General, Chair Tech Crime Board Statutory Missions (2 of 7) – NRS 205A VALERIE WIENER o Recommend changes to civil and criminal statutes in light of tech change. Nevada State Senator, Vice o Assist in securing government information systems. Chair TRAY ABNEY Background: Security Issues Associated with Multi-functional Devices (MFDs) Reno / Sparks Chamber of Commerce o CBS News “Copy Machines, a Security Risk?” April 19, 2010 at http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6412572n&tag=mncol;lst;8 DANIEL G. BOGDEN o Board meeting on July 22, 2010: Technological background and concerns United States Attorney, District of Nevada regarding State systems (minutes attached, see pages 26 to 30). DOUGLAS C. GILLESPIE Sheriff, Clark County Risk Analysis Leads in Different Directions for Public and Private Sectors Las Vegas Metropolitan o Nevada State Standard on MFDs (draft attached) is more proscriptive than Police Department SB 267 since State agencies, generally, have IT personnel who can evaluate MIKE HALEY and limit risks associated with some functions of MFDs. Sheriff, Washoe County o Private sector users of MFDs purchase them specifically to connect to a network, which is a risk State IT personnel seek to prevent or mitigate. KEVIN FAVREAU Special Agent in Charge, o Conclusion: SB 267 mitigates the most significant risk to data stored on or Federal Bureau of copied by MFDs; State agencies are required to take additional precautions Investigation (as of finalization of standard); private sector enterprises with IT personnel DALE NORTON should consider State standards in their MFD implementations. Asst. Superintendent, Character Education, Nye County School District SB 267 continues a broader Nevada effort, over several Legislative sessions, to distinguish this State as a protector of citizen data – both for its own sake HARRY MORTENSON Nevada State Assemblyman and in support of economic development. RICHARD D. SHIELDS th Special Agent in Charge, 75 Session (2009) United States Secret Service o NRS 388, cyber bullying, age appropriate student instruction in cyber safety, cyber security and cyber ethics. CHRISTOPHER G. IPSEN Chief Information Security o NRS 603A, encryption of personal information in transit and on portable Officer, permanent designee devices (laptops and cell phones). for DANIEL H. STOCKWELL NRS 179, identification, freezing, and seizure of electronic funds associated Director & CIO, o Department of Information with certain technological crimes. Technology th WILLIAM UFFELMAN 76 Session (2011) Pending Examples: SB 82, AB 83 President & CEO, Nevada Bankers Association Consequences GREGORY WHITE o Growth of Las Vegas SuperNAP (Switch Communications), now one of Resident Agent in Charge, world’s top 10 data centers with military, government, and large Internet U.S. Immigration & Customs company customers. Enforcement o Multiple bills in support of interactive computer gaming – potentially a unique Nevada funding source, totally dependant on data integrity and protection. Minutes of the Technological Crime Advisory Board July 22, 2010 The Technological Crime Advisory Board was called to order at 10:00 AM on Thursday, July 22, 2010. Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, Chair, presided in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer Building, Las Vegas, Nevada and via videoconference in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (Advisory Board Chair) Nevada State Senator Valerie Wiener (Advisory Board Vice-Chair) Daniel Bogdan, U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice (DOJ) Captain Tom Hawkins, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), meeting designee for Sheriff Doug Gillespie, LVMPD Lieutenant Jerry Baldridge, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO), meeting designee for Sheriff Mike Haley, WCSO Chris Ipsen (Rep. for Dan Stockwell, Director, NV Dept. of Information Technology) Nevada State Assemblyman Harry Mortenson Dale Norton, Nye County School District Assistant Superintendent Assistant Special Agent in Charge Rob Savage, U.S. Secret Service (USSS), meeting designee for Special Agent in Charge Richard Shields, USSS ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Tray Abney, Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce Special Agent in Charge Kevin Favreau, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) William Uffelman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Nevada Bankers Association Resident Agent in Charge Greg White, U.S. Immigrations & Customs Enforcement (ICE) TASK FORCE MEMBERS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James D. Earl, Executive Director OTHERS PRESENT: James R. Elste, Symantec Bob Cooper, Bureau of Consumer Protection Dan Jacobsen, Bureau of Consumer Protection Dennis Carry, WCSO Suzie Block, Attorney General’s Office Nevada Technological Crime Advisory Board 1 July 22, 2010 Meeting Minutes G2 Kristen Hansen, Attorney General’s Office Lydia Sittman, Attorney General’s Office Ira Victor, InfraGard Kristin Erickson, Nevada District Attorney’s Association Teri Mark, Nevada State Library and Archives Agenda Item 1 – Call to Order – Verification of Quorum AG CORTEZ MASTO: The meeting is called to order on July 22, 2010 at 10:00 AM. The first item on the agenda is the call to order and verification of a quorum. Mr. Earl, please call the roll. A roll call of the Advisory Board verified the presence of a quorum. Agenda Item 2 – Discussion and approval of minutes from December Board Meeting AG CORTEZ MASTO: Before moving to the next item of business, first let me say that we are joined by U.S. Attorney Dan Bogden. Welcome back, Dan. It is great to have you. Thank you very much for joining us today. Item 2 is the discussion and approval of minutes from the March Board meeting. If there are any edits or comments, please make them now. Otherwise, I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve the minutes was made by Mr. Ipsen and seconded by Mr. Norton. The motion to approve the minutes was approved unanimously. Agenda Item 3 – Reports regarding Task Force and Board member agency activities AG CORTEZ MASTO: Agenda item 3 is our report regarding task force activities. At this point, we usually hear from various entities interested in giving us an update. Obviously, the FBI is not here. Would any other Board member like to give us an update on the activities of their office? LIEUTENANT BALDRIDGE: Madam Chair, from the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, we have Detective Carry with us to provide an update from the task force. DETECTIVE CARRY: Thank you Attorney General. The task force in the north has been very busy since the last meeting. We have served approximately 10 to 12 federal and state search warrants relating to child pornography in addition to various fraud-related search warrants. Just the other day, we had a sentencing in federal court. The subject was involved in possession of child pornography. He received 60 months. We have had several other people who have pled out during the interim since the last meeting but have not been sentenced yet. We have had approximately 5 indictments and have recovered probably over 100,000 videos and images of child pornography and other related child exploitation crimes. AG CORTEZ MASTO: Thank you very much, Detective Carry. I also understand that Mr. Ipsen has some information regarding participation in cyber competition sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security. Nevada Technological Crime Advisory Board 2 July 22, 2010 Meeting Minutes G3 MR. IPSEN: Absolutely. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I want to take a second to complement the Nevada contingent to the annual Department of Homeland Security cyber security challenge. It was held in Washington DC last month. This is a competition where each state sends a representative group of cyber security professionals. They challenge each other. The first day is a day of training. The second day is a day of competition. Each group works against every other group in the competition. They have 10 minutes to secure their machines and then two hours to defend them against other groups. After that, they reverse rolls. In this year’s competition, a multijurisdictional group of individuals from Nevada won the competition. Last year the competition was won by a multi-state group. This year Nevada’s group of John Lusak, from the Office Information Security, Anthony Workman, from the Department of Public Safety, and Eric Hohman from Washoe County, competed and won the competition. Not only did they defeat everyone in the competition this year, but last year’s champions as well. This was really a feather in Nevada’s hat. On a personal level, I want to say it was really nice to be in a position where Nevada finished number one, rather than the number 50 we so often hear about. We really have some great assets in Nevada. I think that was born out this competition. We will have an opportunity next year to defend our title. We will also have the opportunity to extend these capabilities nationally by working with other people. This is a really important area. It is where the rubber meets the road. You can talk about people being in cyber security, but until you subject yourselves to competition with other highly capable professionals, only then do you really know what you are capable of doing. I really commend them in their efforts. We also had an opportunity to talk about some of the challenges that face the state with officials from the Departments of Homeland Security and State, and a number of other key entities headquartered in Washington DC. I think Nevada is making very positive steps forward in this arena. AG CORTEZ MASTO: Congratulations. And, congratulations to all the members of the team. Might I add, one of the team members, Mr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Every CEO Needs to Know About Cybersecurity
    What Every CEO Needs to Know About Cybersecurity Decoding the Adversary AT&T Cybersecurity Insights Volume 1 AT&T Cybersecurity Insights: Decoding the Adversary 1 Contents 03 Letter from John Donovan Senior Executive Vice President AT&T Technology and Operations 04 Executive Summary 05 Introduction 07 Outsider Threats 15 Looking Ahead: Outsider Threats 16 Best Practices: Outsiders 18 Insider Threats 24 Looking Ahead: New Potential Threats 25 Looking Ahead: Emerging Risks 26 Best Practices: Malicious Insiders 27 Best Practices: Unintentional Insiders 28 Moving Forward 32 Conclusion 33 Know the Terms For more information: Follow us on Twitter @attsecurity 35 End Notes and Sources Visit us at: Securityresourcecenter.att.com © 2015 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T, the AT&T Globe logo and all other AT&T marks contained herein are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property and/or AT&T affiliated companies. The information contained herein is not an offer, commitment, representation or warranty by AT&T and is subject to change. 2 ATT.com/network-security Business leader, Welcome to the inaugural issue of AT&T Cybersecurity Insights, a comprehensive look at our analysis and findings from deep inside AT&T’s network operations groups, outside research firms, and network partners. This first issue, “Decoding the Adversary,” focuses on whether or not you and your board of directors are doing enough to protect against cyber threats. Security is not simply a CIO, CSO, or IT department issue. Breaches, leaked documents, and cybersecurity attacks impact stock prices and competitive edge. It is a responsibility that must be shared amongst all employees, and CEOs and board members must proactively mitigate future challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Mafia Taking Over Cybercrime?*
    Is the Mafia Taking Over Cybercrime?* Jonathan Lusthaus Director of the Human Cybercriminal Project Department of Sociology University of Oxford * This paper is adapted from Jonathan Lusthaus, Industry of Anonymity: Inside the Business of Cybercrime (Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press, 2018). 1. Introduction Claims abound that the Mafia is not only getting involved in cybercrime, but taking a leading role in the enterprise. One can find such arguments regularly in media articles and on blogs, with a number of broad quotes on this subject, including that: the “Mafia, which has been using the internet as a communication vehicle for some time, is using it increasingly as a resource for carrying out mass identity theft and financial fraud”.1 Others prescribe a central role to the Russian mafia in particular: “The Russian Mafia are the most prolific cybercriminals in the world”.2 Discussions and interviews with members of the information security industry suggest such views are commonly held. But strong empirical evidence is rarely provided on these points. Unfortunately, the issue is not dealt with in a much better fashion by the academic literature with a distinct lack of data.3 In some sense, the view that mafias and organised crime groups (OCGs) play an important role in cybercrime has become a relatively mainstream position. But what evidence actually exists to support such claims? Drawing on a broader 7-year study into the organisation of cybercrime, this paper evaluates whether the Mafia is in fact taking over cybercrime, or whether the structure of the cybercriminal underground is something new. It brings serious empirical rigor to a question where such evidence is often lacking.
    [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]
  • Hacks, Leaks and Disruptions | Russian Cyber Strategies
    CHAILLOT PAPER Nº 148 — October 2018 Hacks, leaks and disruptions Russian cyber strategies EDITED BY Nicu Popescu and Stanislav Secrieru WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM Siim Alatalu, Irina Borogan, Elena Chernenko, Sven Herpig, Oscar Jonsson, Xymena Kurowska, Jarno Limnell, Patryk Pawlak, Piret Pernik, Thomas Reinhold, Anatoly Reshetnikov, Andrei Soldatov and Jean-Baptiste Jeangène Vilmer Chaillot Papers HACKS, LEAKS AND DISRUPTIONS RUSSIAN CYBER STRATEGIES Edited by Nicu Popescu and Stanislav Secrieru CHAILLOT PAPERS October 2018 148 Disclaimer The views expressed in this Chaillot Paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute or of the European Union. European Union Institute for Security Studies Paris Director: Gustav Lindstrom © EU Institute for Security Studies, 2018. Reproduction is authorised, provided prior permission is sought from the Institute and the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Contents Executive summary 5 Introduction: Russia’s cyber prowess – where, how and what for? 9 Nicu Popescu and Stanislav Secrieru Russia’s cyber posture Russia’s approach to cyber: the best defence is a good offence 15 1 Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan Russia’s trolling complex at home and abroad 25 2 Xymena Kurowska and Anatoly Reshetnikov Spotting the bear: credible attribution and Russian 3 operations in cyberspace 33 Sven Herpig and Thomas Reinhold Russia’s cyber diplomacy 43 4 Elena Chernenko Case studies of Russian cyberattacks The early days of cyberattacks: 5 the cases of Estonia,
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Primer (2Nd Edition), Dated July 2016, Is Promulgated As Directed by the Chiefs of Staff
    Cyber Primer Second Edition Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre Ministry of Defence’s cyber good practice guide to protecting yourself in cyberspace 1. We are all personally responsible for protecting Defence assets, and information is one of our key assets. Report any concerns immediately. 2. If you think an email is suspicious, forward it as an attachment to SPOC-Spam and delete from your inbox using Shift-Del. If you think you have opened something by mistake, then report it at once. Never reply to spam email. 3. If unsure, don’t click on any links or open attachments. Use Favourites for websites you visit often. 4. Be alert to potential targeting by social engineers and report any concerns immediately. 5. Think before you share online – including posting on social media sites – are you giving away information which could impact on personal or operational security, or could be used by a social engineer? 6. Never give sensitive information unless you are sure the recipient is who they say they are and has a valid need to know. 7. Protect passwords – never share them or leave them where they can be found. Don't make them easily guessable, or use the same password for different applications. 8. Don't plug anything into the USB ports of military IT systems including DII, not even to charge them, except for officially – procured MOD USB devices. If you find any unaccounted for USB devices in your workplace you should hand them to your Security Officer. 9. Keep your anti-virus up to date at home so that it can help reduce the risk of downloading malware.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybercrime Attribution: an Eastern European Case Study
    Proceedings of the 7th Australian Digital Forensics Conference Cybercrime Attribution: An Eastern European Case Study Stephen McCombie1 Josef Pieprzyk2 Paul Watters3 Macquarie University [email protected] [email protected] University of Ballarat [email protected] Abstract Phishing and related cybercrime is responsible for billions of dollars in losses annually. Gartner reported more than 5 million U.S. consumers lost money to phishing attacks in the 12 months ending in September 2008 (Gartner 2009). This paper asks whether the majority of organised phishing and related cybercrime originates in Eastern Europe rather than elsewhere such as China or the USA. The Russian “Mafiya” in particular has been popularised by the media and entertainment industries to the point where it can be hard to separate fact from fiction but we have endeavoured to look critically at the information available on this area to produce a survey. We take a particular focus on cybercrime from an Australian perspective, as Australia was one of the first places where Phishing attacks against Internet banks were seen. It is suspected these attacks came from Ukrainian spammers. The survey is built from case studies both where individuals from Eastern Europe have been charged with related crimes or unsolved cases where there is some nexus to Eastern Europe. It also uses some earlier work done looking at those early Phishing attacks, archival analysis of Phishing attacks in July 2006 and new work looking at correlation between the Corruption Perception Index, Internet penetration and tertiary education in Russia and the Ukraine. The value of this work is to inform and educate those charged with responding to cybercrime where a large part of the problem originates and try to understand why.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Report: Russia and Disinformation
    MARCH 2019 RUSSIA AND DISINFORMATION: THE CASE OF THE CAUCASUS FULL REPORT Dr Cerwyn Moore, University of Birmingham How does Russian state disinformation operate in the Caucasus region? This report considers three different cases of disinformation deployment in the Caucasus region to highlight the dynamics of Russian state influence, both domestically in the Russian Federation’s North Caucasus region as well as in Georgia, just across the Russian border in the South Caucasus. This report is part of a series on disinformation to come out of the Actors and Narratives programme. The other three reports in the Russia and Disinformation series: 'The Case of Ukraine', 'Maskirovka' , and 'Institutions and Actors' can be found at www.crestresearch.ac.uk/tag/russia- disinformation/ About CREST The Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST) is a national hub for understanding, countering and mitigating security threats. It is an independent centre, commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and funded in part by the UK security and intelligence agencies (ESRC Award: ES/N009614/1). www.crestresearch.ac.uk ©2019 CREST Creative Commons 4.0 BY-NC-SA licence. www.crestresearch.ac.uk/copyright TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................4 DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND THE RISE OF TECH ..............................................5 BESLAN .......................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Cyber Threats Report for 2009
    Emerging Cyber Threats Report for 2009 Data, Mobility and Questions of Responsibility will Drive Cyber Threats in 2009 and Beyond On October 15, 2008, the Georgia Tech Information Security Center (GTISC) hosted its annual summit on emerging security threats and countermeasures affecting the digital world. At the conclusion of the event, GTISC released this Emerging Cyber Threats Report—outlining the top five information security threats and challenges facing both consumer and business users in 2009. This year’s summit participants include security experts from the public sector, private enterprise and academia, reinforcing GTISC’s collaborative approach to addressing information security technology and policy challenges. “As one of the leading academic research centers focused on information security, GTISC believes strongly that a proactive and collaborative approach to understanding emerging threats will help us develop more effective information security technologies and strategies,” said Mustaque Ahamad, director of GTISC. “The annual GTISC Security Summit on Emerging Cyber Security Threats and our annual Emerging Cyber Threats Report seek to give us a better understanding of the cyber security challenges we will face in the years ahead.” GTISC research and advance interviews with key information security experts from government, industry and academia uncovered five specific trends and some profound questions that will drive threats and countermeasures in 2009 and beyond, including: Malware Botnets Cyber warfare Threats to VoIP and mobile devices The evolving cyber crime economy In an effort to inform the broader community about current and future risks, this report will describe each emerging threat, existing or potential countermeasures, and how the threat may evolve in the coming year.
    [Show full text]
  • AS40989 RBN AS Rbusiness Network
    The Shadowserver Foundation AS40989 RBN AS RBusiness Network Clarifying the “guesswork” of Criminal Activity The Shadowserver Foundation www.shadowserver.org The Shadowserver Foundation The Russian Business Network On or about November 6th, 2007 21:00 UTC [1] the primary group of networks run by a organization commonly referred to as The Russian Business Network [RBN] disappeared from the Internet. This is not the first time RBN’s network has gone dark, but it is certainly the longest and probably the last. Due to a recent media blitz of sorts, pressure seems to have been exerted in the right places to surrender all hope for the network. In light of what would appear to Figure 1. be the abandonment of Was it an experiment in attempting to bring a “brick and mortar” philosophy to the the ASN so vigorously malware business or was it a virtual middle finger from Russia with love? reported on in the past few months, we have decided to clear the air of any possible questions regarding the legitimacy of complaints against the network. This report does not concentrate on any other malicious RBN activity other than the malware associated with AS40989. "We can't understand on which basis these organizations have such an opinion about our company," Jaret of the Russian Business Network told Wired in an e-mail interview. "We can say that this is subjective opinion based on these organizations' guesswork.” 1 -’Jaret’ an RBN Spokesman 1 Wired Magazine “Russian Hosting Firm Denies Criminal Ties, It May Sue Blacklister” Ryan Singel http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/russian_network AS40989 - RBN AS RBusiness Network - Clarifying the “guesswork” of Criminal Activity 1 The Shadowserver Foundation Malicious Binary Activity Directed to and Commanded by AS40989 A Multitude of Samples In our overall collection of sandnet run malware, AS40989 ranked #10 out of 1447 (November 2007) in having the highest number of unique pieces of malware communicating via HTTP with specific ASNs.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Warfare a “Nuclear Option”?
    CYBER WARFARE A “NUCLEAR OPTION”? ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH CYBER WARFARE: A “NUCLEAR OPTION”? BY ANDREW KREPINEVICH 2012 Cyber Warfare: A “Nuclear Option”? About the Center for Strategic And Budgetary Assessments The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonparti- san policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national se- curity strategy and investment options. CSBA’s goal is to enable policymakers to make informed deci- sions on matters of strategy, security policy and re- source allocation. CSBA provides timely, impartial, and insightful analyses to senior decision makers in the executive and legislative branches, as well as to the media and the broader national securi- ty community. CSBA encourages thoughtful par- ticipation in the development of national security strategy and policy, and in the allocation of scarce human and capital resources. CSBA’s analysis and Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments outreach focus on key questions related to exist- ing and emerging threats to US national security. Meeting these challenges will require transform- ing the national security establishment, and we are devoted to helping achieve this end. Cyber Warfare: A “Nuclear Option”? ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr. is the President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which he joined following a 21-year career in the U.S. Army. He has served in the Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment, on the personal staff of three secretaries of defense, the National Defense Panel, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Joint Experimentation, and the Defense Policy Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Cyber Threats and Russian Views on Information Warfare and Information Operations ROLAND HEICKERÖ
    Emerging Cyber Threats and Russian Views on Information Warfare and Information Operations ROLAND HEICKERÖ FOI, Swedish Defence Research Agency, is a mainly assignment-funded agency under the Ministry of Defence. The core activities are research, method and technology development, as well as studies conducted in the interests of Swedish defence and the safety and security of society. The organisation employs approximately 1000 personnel of whom about 800 are scientists. This makes FOI Sweden’s largest research institute. FOI gives its customers access to leading-edge expertise in a large number of fi elds such as security policy studies, defence and security related analyses, the assessment of various types of threat, systems for control and management of crises, protection against and management of hazardous substances, IT security and the potential offered by new sensors. FOI Swedish Defence Research Agency Phone: +46 8 555 030 00 www.foi.se FOI-R--2970--SE User Report Defence Analysis Defence Analysis Fax: +46 8 555 031 00 ISSN 1650-1942 March 2010 SE-164 90 Stockholm Roland Heickerö Emerging Cyber Threats and Russian Views on Information Warfare and Information Operations FOI-R--2970--SE Titel Utveckling av cyberhot och den ryska synen på informationskrigföring och informationsoperationer Title Emerging Cyber Threats and Russian Views on Information Warfare and Information Operations Rapportnr/Report no FOI-R--2970--SE Rapporttyp Användarrapport Report Type User Report Månad/Month March Utgivningsår/Year 2010 Antal sidor/Pages 68 p ISSN ISSN 1650-1942 Kund/Customer Projektnr/Project no A12001 Godkänd av/Approved by FOI, Totalförsvarets Forskningsinstitut FOI, Swedish Defence Research Agency Avdelningen för Försvarsanalys Division of Defence Analysis 164 90 Stockholm SE-164 90 Stockholm FOI-R--2970--SE Abstract The objective of this report is to analyse Russian views on information warfare (IW) and information operations (IO).
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Fraud and Internet Banking
    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]