Pig-butchering may be proving the Luddites were right. The social-engineering scam bypassed ransomware as the most profitable cybercrime approximately two years ago. After government regulations and law enforcement took a big bite out of returns for ransomware this past year, public-private partnerships are taking aim at the new champ.
TL;DR
* Pig butchering eclipses losses from ransomware
* Top targets are tech savvy people under 50
* Human error trumps cyber awareness
* Public/private partnerships making inroads at dismantling scam operations
* Tips to avoid scams
* Podcast with Arkose CEO
Between 2020 and 20023, scammers reaped more than $75 billion from victims around the world. Approximately 90 percent of the losses came from of purchasing fraudulent cryptocurrency, according to the US Treasury Department’s, Financial Crimes Enforcement Center. In comparison, ransomware attacks in that same period harvested $20 billion worldwide in ransoms and cost approximately another $20 billion in recovery costs.
As we prepare for the annual October holiday season with Cybersecurity Awareness Month there is an important question to ask. Are we as a society at the point of fatigue over every new security breach, or are the companies getting breached just too big to fail?
Security giant Fortinet announced a data breach this week that was remarkable in two ways. One was how small the breach was (less than 500GB) Two was how calm Fortinet seemed to be about. Security gadfly Dr. Chase Cunningham posted a flippant comment about the breach on Linkedin, encouraging his followers to “buy on the breach.” He pointed out that with big public companies, in security or not, generally take a hit on their stock for a day or two after a breach, but the stock rises to new highs as the dust clears. And no one seems to care about the downstream customers whose data might have been stolen.
A 2010 study published in the Journal of Cost Management concluded that a company could be more profitable if it annoyed unhappy customers more than they already were. The success of that strategy increased with the size of the company, according to the study, and when there were fewer competitors for a customer to turn to.
The reasons for the success were simple. If a pissed off customer decided to go a smaller provider, there were always new customers who signed up, simply because they were the biggest. If there were no smaller competitors, the customer never went away. In the process, the offending company rarely has to pay out to make the customer whole. The study pointed our that companies like United Airlines have notoriously bad customer service, but they rarely lose market share because of it.
Kevin Szczepanski, co-chair of Barclay Damon's Data Security, is much more forgiving
Traditional methods of safeguarding information assets have become insufficient in today’s world of advanced cybercrime strategies. A more proactive approach is needed. This article explains the concept of breach and attack simulation (BAS).
State legislatures are scrambling hard to enact regulations of the cybersecurity and AI industries to protect them from themselves. And the leaders of those industries object to the efforts, like drug abusers forced into rehab.
For the past 10 years, the investor world shoveled money into any company that said they are focused on AI, but that support is starting to shake. Many AI startups that have received billions of investment are struggling financially, not the least of which is the elephant in the room, OpenAI. The most successful AI company in the world is on pace to lose $5 billion this year and, according to CEO Sam Altman, the company needs more than $8 billion more investment this year or will face bankruptcy inside 12 months.
Part of the loss of confidence in AI are the number of failures that seem to be increasing. The AI Incident Database, which chronicles incidents dating back to 1983, now contains 629 incidents. An even bigger reason is the self-governing rules the industry says it has adopted either don’t work or are ignored altogether.
The industry has generally acknowledged its weaknesses. More than a year ago, Altman sat before the US Senate essentially begging for the government to regulate the industry. Support for that legislation has waned, however, as 15 U.S. state legislatures are considering dozens of bills to regulate the development and use of artificial intelligence.
In a letter from OpenAI Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon to California Senator Scott Wiener (author of SB 1047), the company highlighted several reasons it opposed the bill, including the recommendation that regulation should be, "shaped and implemented at the federal level. A federally-driven set of AI policies, rather than a patchwork of state laws, will foster innovation and position the US to lead the development of global standards."
The “patchwork” argument has been used to oppose proposed laws in nine states. The problem with that is most federal laws come after a critical mass of laws at the state level. Historically, when two thirds of the sites pass similar laws, the US Congress considers standardizing them nationally. The US is less than halfway through that process.
The legislators authoring these bills seem to understand that they are not “experts” in technology and have been working with tech companies to make the bills more palatable. In California’s SB 1047, Weiner, removed provisions for criminal prosecution and an entirely new state bureaucracy to enforce the bill before it went to the governor’s desk last week. Instead, the bill merely directs the state attorney general to file civil charges when companies violate the mandates.
Premium Membership Required
You must be a Premium member to access this content.
There is a wide gap between regulatory compliance mandates and practical implementation and enforcement that I like to call the “Compliance Chasm”. That chasm is defined by the activity to protect consumers and consideration for the economic and operational impact on business enterprises. Finding that balance requires thought, not the more popular whack-a-mole enterprise strategy that reacts to new compliance mandates.
The frequency and size of regulatory fines are rising for non-compliance. In January 2023, Meta was fined $418 million for GDPR violations by Meta properties’ Facebook and Instagram. Ireland’s Data Protection Commission follows up in May that same year with a $1.3 billion fine for additional violations. And those were just the latest fines imposed on web giants, that also included Google and Amazon.
The targets of those fines might be justified in saying compliance is an impossible task. By 2025 the volume of data/information created, captured, copied, and consumed worldwide is forecast to reach 181 zettabytes. Nearly 80% of companies estimate that 50%-90% of their data is unstructured text, video, audio, web server logs, or social media activities.
Keeping up with requirements has caused financial organizations to rapidly overhaul their IT infrastructure. Because of this rapid digitalization, organizations are consuming many different security solutions creating a bespoke environment that inadvertently exposes them to cyber threats.
Small businesses face a myriad of cybersecurity threats, with ransomware and malware being the most prevalent. The consequences of such breaches can be profound and multifaceted, affecting various aspects of the business.
“Your security is important to us,” is a common phrase on corporate websites and emails, usually after some data breach that affects customers. To prove that statement, corporations invest billions of dollars in the cybersecurity industry. Most market projections say the industry is worth about $180 billion. About 15 percent of that market goes to data security. But all the indications are that we are losing the war in personal identity security That leaves is with the question: Do corporations really care about customer security?
Probably not
US Department of Health and Human Services reported recently that. in the US, there have been 2,213 breaches since 2020, with 152.1M affected individuals. That is almost half of the American population. But that is just breaches involving medical data.
The FBI reports, in the same period, more than 350 million stolen personal information records, exceeding the known population of the country. Worldwide, the number of personal identity information (PII) records exceeds one billion people.
So how bad is it? “I always tell people assume your social security number has been breached. Just assume that,” said John Meyer, senior director for Cornerstone Advisors, an organization providing security consultation to financial organizations.
So we are spending tens of billions of dollars to protect data from exfiltratation on almost a weekly basis from attacks bypassing current defenses. Is it worth the investment? Does protecting that data even matter?
Well, yes… sort of
Data security professionals say it is and it does. Communications, industry intellectual property, state secrets, and control of crucial systems must still be protected. Most professionals we talked to cite ransomware attacks as the primary reason for investing in security precuts and services.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
