Hackers Could Decrypt Your GSM Phone Calls

Researchers have discovered a flaw in the GSM standard used by AT&T and T-Mobile that would allow hackers to listen in.

Most mobile calls around the world are made over the Global System for Mobile Communications standard; in the US, GSM underpins any call made over AT&T or T-Mobile networks. But at the DefCon security conference in Las Vegas on Saturday, researchers from BlackBerry are presenting an attack that can intercept GSM calls as they’re transmitted over the air and then decrypt them to listen back to what was said. What’s more, this vulnerability has been around for decades.

Regular GSM calls aren’t fully end-to-end encrypted for maximum protection, but they are encrypted at many steps along their path, so random people can’t just tune into phone calls over the air like radio stations. The researchers found, though, that they can target the encryption algorithms used to protect calls and listen in on basically anything.

“GSM is a well-documented and analyzed standard, but it’s an aging standard and it’s had a pretty typical cybersecurity journey,” says Campbell Murray, the global head of delivery for BlackBerry Cybersecurity. “The weaknesses we found are in any GSM implementation up to 5G. Regardless of which GSM implementation you’re using there is a flaw historically created and engineered that you’re exposing.”

The problem is in the encryption key exchange that establishes a secure connection between a phone and a nearby cell tower every time you initiate a call. This exchange gives both your device and the tower the keys to unlock the data that is about to be encrypted. In analyzing this interaction, the researchers realized that the way the GSM documentation is written, there are flaws in the error control mechanisms governing how the keys are encoded. This makes the keys vulnerable to a cracking attack.

“It’s a really good example of how the intention is there to create security, but the security engineering process behind that implementation failed.” – CAMPBELL MURRAY, BLACKBERRY

As a result, a hacker could set up equipment to intercept call connections in a given area, capture the key exchanges between phones and cellular base stations, digitally record the calls in their unintelligible, encrypted form, crack the keys, and then use them to decrypt the calls. The findings analyze two of GSM’s proprietary cryptographic algorithms that are widely used in call encryption—A5/1 and A5/3. The researchers found that they can crack the keys in most implementations of A5/1 within about an hour. For A5/3 the attack is theoretically possible, but it would take many years to actually crack the keys.

“We spent a lot of time looking at the standards and reading the implementations and reverse engineering what the key exchange process looks like,” Murray says. “You can see how people believed that this was a good solution. It’s a really good example of how the intention is there to create security, but the security engineering process behind that implementation failed.”

The researchers emphasize that because GSM is such an old and thoroughly analyzed standard, there are already other known attacks against it that are easier to carry out in practice, like using malicious base stations, often called stingrays, to intercept calls or track a cell phone’s location. Additional research into the A5 family of ciphers over the years has turned up other flaws as well. And there are ways to configure the key exchange encryption that would make it more difficult for attackers to crack the keys. But Murray adds that the theoretical risk always remains.

Short of totally overhauling the GSM encryption scheme, which seems unlikely, the documentation for implementing A5/1 and A5/3 could be revised to make key interception and cracking attacks even more impractical. The researchers say that they are in the early phases of discussing the work with the standards body GSMA.

The trade association said in a statement to WIRED: “Details have not been submitted to the GSMA under our coordinated vulnerability programme. When the technical details are known to the GSMA’s Fraud and Security Group we will be better placed to consider the implications and the necessary mitigation actions.”

Though it may not be that surprising at this point that GSM has security issues, it’s still the cellular protocol used by the vast majority of the world. And as long as it’s around, real call privacy issues remain too.

Source | https://www.wired.com/story/gsm-decrypt-calls/?verso=true

RM67.6 million lost to cyber crimes in Q1 2019

LABUAN: Cyber crimes involving losses of RM67.6 million in 2,207 cases were reported in the first three months of this year, according to a senior officer of the Communications and Multimedia Ministry (KKMM) today.

Its deputy secretary-general (policy), Shakib Ahmad Shakir, said the ministry and agencies under it were concerned over the large amounts of money lost through such scams.

The three most common types of cyber crimes were cheating via telephone calls which recorded 773 cases with RM26.8 million in losses, cheating in online purchases with 811 cases totaling RM4.2 million and the ‘African Scam’ with 371 cases totaling RM14.9 million.

E-financial fraud recorded 212 cases involving losses of RM21.5 million, he said when opening a Labuan-level briefing on awareness to combat cyber crimes and human trafficking, here.

He said the losses were reported in online scams, credit card frauds, identity thefts and data breaches.

“KKMM is determined to combat cyber crimes in view of the concerns raised on the rise in cyber crimes committed through various means.

“Cyber crimes are a serious threat to the people as these frauds can cause them to lose hundreds of thousands of ringgit of their hard-earned money,” he said.

The briefing is part of the commitment of KKMM to create public awareness on cyber crimes through education and promotion and publicity campaigns.

Shakib said that according to the Commercial Crime Investigation Department, 13,058 cheating cases were reported in 2017 compared to 10,394 last year.

“I was told that telecommunication fraud is the most common form of (cyber) crime in Labuan with 16 complaints in 2017 and 19 complaints last year, a 35 per cent increase,” he said.

Shakib said the ministry would continue to cooperate with its strategic partners like the media, police, the Malaysian National News Agency (Bernama) and Information Department to combat the menace. – Bernama

Source | https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2019/04/482208/rm676-million-lost-cyber-crimes-q1-2019

Happy Ramadan Kareem 2019

السلام عليك

“May the RAMADAN bring you peace and prosperity, good health and wealth, and brighten your life forever”

Best Regards,

SNC INNOVATION FAMILY

MORE DEDICATED CYBER-SECURITY STAFF NEEDED IN HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY

  • Industry that deals with copious amounts of personal, exploitable data
  • Organisation-wide education and awareness are crucial

AS THE adoption of digital technology in the healthcare industry accelerates, there is an increasing need to protect another side of patients’ and healthcare organisations’ well-being – the security of their personal data.

This emphasis on protecting data and mitigating cyber-threats is reflected in the industry’s significant investment into cyber-security.

According to a recent survey by Palo Alto Networks, about 70% of healthcare organisations in Asia-Pacific say that 5% to 15% of their organisation’s IT budget is allocated to cyber-security.

However, despite substantial budgets, there seems to be a need for the healthcare industry to catch-up with industry peers in terms of cyber-security talent, with only 78% having a team in their organisations dedicated to IT security, the lowest among other industries surveyed. This is also well-below the industry-wide average of 86%.

“As an industry that deals with copious amounts of personal, exploitable data, it can be disastrous if this data enters the wrong hands.

“Healthcare organisations need to ensure they are always updated on new security measures, and change their mindset from a reactive approach to a prevention-based approach instead, akin to how they remind patients that prevention is better than cure,” says Sean Duca, vice president and regional chief security officer for Asia-Pacific, Palo Alto Networks.

Risk factors

Aside from monetary loss associated with data breaches and availability of connected devices which monitor patient lives, healthcare professionals are most worried about the loss of clients’ contacts, financial or medical information – 30% have cited loss of details as key.

Fear of damaging the company’s reputation among clients comes next at 22%, followed by 17% citing company downtime while a breach is being fixed as a concern.

Cyber-security risks in healthcare organisations are also amplified with BYOD (Bring Your Own Device), with 78% of organisations allowing employees to access work-related information with their own personal devices such as their mobile phones and computers.

In addition to this, 69% of those surveyed say they are allowed to store and transfer their organisation’s confidential information through their personal devices.

While 83% claimed there are security policies in place, only 39% admit to reviewing these policies more than once a year – lower than the 51% of respondents from the finance industry, a sector also known to hold sensitive client data.

Call to get in shape for the future

As more healthcare organisations fall prey to cyber-attacks, such as ransomware, a lapse in data security is a real threat to the industry, hence organisation-wide education and awareness are crucial towards ensuring that the right preventive measures are implemented and enforced.

Fifty-four percent of the respondents have cited an inability to keep up with the evolving solutions being a barrier to ensuring cyber-security in their organisations, and 63% of respondents attributed this to an ageing internet infrastructure as the likely main reason for cyber-threats, should they happen.

Here are some tips for healthcare organisations:

Ensure that medical devices are equipped with up-to-date firmware and security patches to address cyber-security risks. Medical devices are notoriously vulnerable to cyber-attacks because security is often an afterthought when the devices are designed and maintained by the manufacturer. These precautionary measures may include having an inventory on all medical devices, accessing network architecture and determining patch management plan for medical devices, as well as developing a plan to migrate medical devices to the medical device segment.

Apply a zero-trust networking architecture for hospital networks, making security ubiquitous throughout, not just at the perimeter. Healthcare organisations should look to segment devices and data based on their risk, inspecting network data as it flows between segments, and requiring authentication to the network and to any application for any user on the network.

Practices such as BYOD and some employees’ ability to store and transfer confidential information through their personal devices put them at a higher risk of phishing attacks. To prevent this, healthcare providers should ensure that staff undergo regular end-user security training to reduce successful phishing. Cyber-security best practices can be taught as a new hire class for every employee.

As healthcare organisations migrate portions of their critical infrastructure and applications to the cloud, it becomes imperative for an advanced and integrated security architecture to be deployed to prevent cyber-attacks on three-prongs: the network, the endpoint and the cloud. Traditional antivirus will not be effective in guarding against advanced malware such as ransomware which continuously changes to avoid detection.

Source | https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-economy/more-dedicated-cyber-security-staff-needed-healthcare-industry

Top 10 operational risks for 2019

The biggest op risks for 2019, as chosen by industry practitioners

We present annual ranking of the biggest op risks for the year ahead, based on a survey of operational risk practitioners across the globe and in-depth interviews with a selection of industry personnel. The risks are listed in order of magnitude of threat, with this year’s largest risk being data compromise.

#1: Data compromise  

The threat of data loss through cyber attack, combined with an awareness among managers that defences are vulnerable, has made data compromise a perennial concern for op risk practitioners of all stripes. But the advent of strict new data protection regulation has intensified those fears, helping propel the category to the top of our annual survey for the first time.

Collecting multiple datasets and storing them in one place presents a single, tempting target for hackers. Companies have responded by compartmentalising data and storing it across several locations in an effort to reduce the potential loss from a single breach.

“You have to assume hackers will get through, and what do you do then? It can be just making sure you are storing data in several places, splitting your data so [hackers] getting into one file won’t get what they need,” says one senior risk practitioner.

The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), introduced in May 2018, aims to tighten consumer safeguards around data disclosure. No prosecution has yet used the full scope of penalties – the regulation allows a fine of up to 4% of global revenue – but companies are wary of a sizeable additional loss associated with, for example, a major data breach due to negligence.

Other areas of GDPR may have attracted less attention, but still pose significant potential sources of operational risk. Companies must provide customers with access to their own data, including the ability to correct or erase it in some cases; and they must report a data breach within 72 hours.

New regulations are also offering up enticing targets for hackers, though: their targets are broadening beyond financial services firms to encompass intermediaries and even the official sector. For example, the EU’s Mifid II markets regime requires trading platforms and investment firms to collect personal information on the counterparties to every trade – not just a potential privacy issue, but a new and worrying point of entry to would-be hackers. As the data is passed from firm to platform and from platform to regulator, it becomes exposed to attack.

Some banks are taking advantage of the new market in cyber crime to adopt a more proactive defence strategy. Cyber criminals use the unindexed “dark” web to offer stolen data for sale. By monitoring this black market, institutions may gain advance warning of attacks, or even discover stolen data whose theft had gone unnoticed.

An active defence should also include penetration testing, both online and physical. Often the critical weakness in a cyber security plan sits, as IT managers put it, between chair and keyboard.

In a landmark case in October 2018, US authorities fined fund manager Voya Financial $1 million after a security breach allowed hackers to steal the personal details of thousands of customers. The hackers gained access by making repeated phone requests for password changes, pretending to be Voya subcontractors. Resetting the passwords was explicitly banned by Voya’s policies, but its employees did it nonetheless.

#2: IT disruption

Cyber attacks conjure images of masked figures gaining access to the IT network of a company or government and making away with millions, yet the reality is often more prosaic. Malware designed merely for nuisance value can cripple firms’ operations, while the origin of attack is often not rogue criminal but state entity: the WannaCry and NotPetya ransomware events of 2017 were widely attributed to state-sponsored sources.

“Hackers are more organised and some countries have malicious, not criminal intent,” says an operational risk consultant. “They might not get anything out of it apart from bringing systems down and causing disruption.”

The past year has not seen as many high-profile disruptive cyber attacks as the previous one, which may go some way to explaining why IT disruption slips to second place in Risk.net’s 2019 survey.

However, risk experts still see cyber attacks as an ever-present menace.

Distributed denial of service (DDoS) is one of the most common forms of attack. DDoS data from two security specialists provides a conflicting picture: Kaspersky Lab reports a decline in overall attacks by 13% from 2017 to 2018. Corero says that among its customers, the number of events in 2018 was up 16% year-on-year.

Banks remain vulnerable, even the largest. In April 2018, it was revealed that a co-ordinated DDoS attack had disrupted services at seven major UK lenders, including Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and RBS. The National Crime Agency and international partners responded by shutting down a website linked to the attacks that offered DDoS services for a small fee.

As banks shift more of their retail and commercial activity online, a growing fear is that a widespread cyber event could cripple an institution’s activity. Dwindling branch networks are reducing the “hard” infrastructure that lenders could previously rely on to maintain essential services.

“Banks may be taking channels offline as firms move away from the high street and close their branches,” says the head of operational risk at a bank. “So one route they have which offers them a certain type of resilience may not be there in a few years’ time and they may be wholly dependent on the digital side.”

#3: IT failure

Though usually overshadowed by its attention-grabbing cousin – the threat of a cyber attack – the risk of an internal IT failure is never far off risk managers’ minds. When such failures happen, their financial, reputational and regulatory consequences can easily rival the damage from high-profile data theft.

It is probably no coincidence that the danger of a self-imposed IT debacle is the third-largest operational risk in 2019’s survey: it follows a year in which a botched system migration cost UK bankTSB more than £300 million ($396 million) in related charges and an unknowable sum in lost customers.

And it’s a risk that is only likely to grow in importance, op risk managers acknowledge: “The more we interconnect, the more we have online banking and direct [digital] interaction between our clients and ourselves – the more IT structures can be disrupted,” says a senior op risk executive at a major European bank, summing up a view expressed by several risk managers.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is co-ordinating various national and international efforts to improve cyber risk management. Last year it set up the Operational Resilience Working Group – its first goal has been “to identify the range of existing practice in cyber resilience, and assess gaps and possible policy measures to enhance banks’ broader operational resilience going forward”, the committee said in a November 2018 document.

On a national level, operational resilience – including against IT failures – is an area of focus for the Bank of England. The central bank defines it as “the ability of firms and the financial system as a whole to absorb and adapt to shocks”. In July, it published a joint discussion paper on operational resilience with the UK’s Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial Conduct Authority.

Speaking at the OpRisk Europe conference in June, the PRA’s deputy chief executive Lyndon Nelson said: “It is likely that the [BoE] will set a minimum level of service provision it expects for the delivery of key economic functions in the event of a severe but plausible operational disruption.”

#4: Organisational change  

Organisational change – sometimes called ‘strategic execution risk’ – refers to the grab bag of things that can go sideways in the midst of any transition: switching to a new system from an old one, new strategic objectives, adjustments to new management edifices, errors or just bad decisions, etc.

The catalyst can come from any number of directions – mergers or acquisitions, divisional reorganisations, a strategic change in business mix. Unfortunately for financial firms, none of these are mutually exclusive ­– most are largely unavoidable.

Banks and buy-side firms are subject to the currents of consumer taste and the need to keep pace with rivals. Often, firms might be prompted into action by a shift in the nature of the threats they face: witness cyber risk’s long journey from the domain of IT to the risk team.

New regulation may also force change, requiring a company to divert resources, redeploy personnel or create new departments entirely – as in the case of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book, for instance.

Problems arising during technology upgrades or changes are perhaps the most often mentioned risks in this threat category. But geopolitical rumblings can add to the difficulties in changes to a hierarchy or embarking on a new business strategy, says one risk professional. One senior op risk consultant says the atmosphere it produces can lead to dangerous operational mis-steps.

Brexit will soon probably provide many such examples. With a disorderly exit by the UK from the European Union this month almost a certainty, banks and brokers are setting up new entities on mainland Europe at a breakneck speed that almost guarantees problems – some as simple as staffing up and resource management.

“With political and economic risk increased, especially by Brexit, the time available to handle change is squeezed,” says the consultant. “That leads to potential errors in execution.”

#5: Theft and fraud

Despite slipping a place on this year’s list, theft and fraud is still many operational risk managers’ worst nightmare. The idea of a massive heist by enterprising hackers, mercenary employees or plain old bank robbers, possibly followed by fines and penalties, keeps the category near the top of the op risk survey year after year.

Inside jobs made up the top three of 2018’s biggest publicly reported op risk losses: Beijing-based Anbang Insurance lost a shattering $12 billion to embezzlement; in Ukraine, $5.5 billion vanished from PrivatBank in a ‘loan-recycling’ scheme; and in New Delhi, the Punjab National Bank lost $2.2 billion to wayward employees working with a fugitive diamond dealer.

These top losses were the result of old-fashioned crimes in the emerging world. At US and European banks though, it’s the cyber component of theft and fraud that looms large – despite the absence of even a single incident on the top 10 list.

“You can commit theft and fraud anonymously. You can go multicurrency, bitcoin,” comments a senior operational risk executive who says theft and fraud make up the biggest loss at the North American bank where he works. “You can be on the other side of the world, funds in hand, before anyone realises the money is missing.”

According to ORX News, the total of publicly reported losses attributable to cyber-related data breaches and instances of fraud and business disruption was $935 million worldwide in financial services last year. Over half those incidents involved fraud.

Cyber fraud comes generally in one of two sorts: one sows chaos, then grabs data en masse in the ensuing turmoil; the other zeros in on individuals to drain their accounts.

A large-scale attack could consist of millions of small transactions, like a $1 charge on a credit card, each likely unnoticed by the cardholder. In a targeted attack, thieves try to pry loose enough data from a customer’s social media persona to get access to their bank account. Other, more sophisticated schemes look for the weak points in authentication systems like biometrics. Some apps, for instance, can replicate a person’s voice patterns and fool voice ID systems.

“Equifax taught us that you need to move away from knowledge-based authentication to more activity-based identification,” says an op risk head at a second North American bank, for instance, something like asking people what their last two transactions were. In 2017, hackers stole data such as names, birthdates and Social Security numbers on nearly 148 million people from Equifax’s online systems.

#6: Outsourcing and third-party risk

Outsourcing key infrastructure or services to third parties is a tantalising prospect for many firms. The incentive is to harness the expertise of specialist providers, or to save costs. Or, ideally, a combination of the two.

The trade-off for many risk managers is a lingering concern about losing oversight of vital business functions. The prevalence of breaches via third parties and growing regulatory scrutiny of this area, not to mention the build-up of risk in certain systemically important platforms, are the focus of anxiety.

“If cloud platforms are correctly configured, they can enhance security, as well as creating efficiencies and reducing costs for customers,” says a UK cyber insurance executive. “However, if there was an incident that took down a cloud provider such as AWS or Azure, or a component part of the cloud infrastructure, this could cause an outage for thousands of individual companies.”

Regulators are zeroing in on outsourcing risk, too. The European Banking Authority (EBA) finalised outsourcing guidelines in February 2019, with a view to providing a single framework for financial firms’ contracts with third and fourth parties.

Financial institutions are also concerned about their reliance on crucial financial market infrastructuresuch as trading venues and clearing houses. Unlike IT or payroll systems, these are services that are difficult if not impossible to replicate in-house – as banks have tried to do with some troublesomevendor relationships.

Successful trading venues and clearing houses typically achieve a critical mass of liquidity that makes it very difficult for viable competitors to thrive. Without a credible threat to leave CCPs, banks lack the leverage to persuade the service providers to supply information on data or cyber security practices that might allow risk managers to properly assess threats.

#7: Regulatory risk

This year, the usual complement of regulation plus roiling new issues placed regulatory risk in seventh position on the list.

Chief among shifting regulatory expectations, anti-money laundering (AML) compliance has taken centre stage since the Danske Bank Estonian episode came to light in 2017. As much as €200 billion ($226.1 billion) in ‘non-resident’ money coursed through Danske’s modest Tallinn branch from 2007 to 2015.

Danske’s chief and chairman were ousted. The Danish financial regulator has imposed higher capital requirements, and the US Department of Justice has begun a criminal investigation. The EBA is looking into whether regulators in Denmark and Estonia were remiss. Estonia has ordered Danske to shut the branch.

“On AML, there are huge regulatory expectations there,” says one operational risk executive at an international bank. “We have a huge programme in the group to try and comply with their requirements.”

Elsewhere, changes to data protection legislation presents its own matrix of requirements for banks spanning continents, beginning with the EU’s GDPR.

“There are so many privacy regulations that raise issues from a regulatory risk standpoint. It’s a patchwork of regulations at the state and federal levels,” says an operational risk executive at one North American bank.

Banks are also warily eyeing further regulatory intervention from the Basel Committee on operational resilience – a broad initiative that sets out regulators’ expectations on a number of business continuity topics, including a minimum response time to return to normal operations after a platform outage.

#8: Data management

A conversation with any op risk manager will land, sooner or later, on the issue of data management. It could be concerns about data quality, particularly of historical data stored on legacy systems, which carries with it problems such as format and reliability. Or it could be the risk of missteps when handling customer data – inappropriate checks on storage, use or permissioning – that now come with the added threat of eye-watering fines from regulators.

Taken together, it’s no surprise that data management has made it into the top 10 op risks as a discrete risk category for the first time this year. It is considered separately from the threat of data compromise, where data breaches share the common driver of a malicious external threat.

Much of the impetus behind firms’ drive to beef up standards around the storage and transfer of personal data stems from the tightening of regulatory supervision on data privacy and security around the world – most obviously GDPR. Firms operating within the EU or holding data on EU citizens – which puts just about every firm around the world in scope, to some degree – may be heavily fined for falling foul of the regime, for instance, by failing to explicitly gain consent from individuals to retain and use their data.

As data management and compliance headaches multiply, the financial sector is pushing to use machine learning to augment the modelling of everything from loan approvals to suspicious transactions. In a sense, the methods offer a fix to downplay human errors. However, dealers have acknowledged machine learning models’ predictive power leaves them open to potentially unethical biases, such as inadvertently discriminating against certain customer groups because the bank’s data shows a higher risk of non-payment based on other customers historically served there.

Poor data management has consequences for everyday compliance exercises, such as filling in mandatory quarterly risk control self-assessment forms to the satisfaction of regulators. Banks “are missing robust data management processes to ensure that data is reliable, complete and up to date, and that reports can be generated [in a timely manner]”, the head of op risk at one Asian bank tells Risk.net.

#9: Brexit

Brexit covers such a wide range of possible risk events that some participants in this year’s survey disputed whether it should be included as a standalone chapter at all; but a significant number argued strongly that it should, with its collective drivers likely engendering a common set of specific risks for banks and financial firms for years to come.

At the time of writing, the UK is a fortnight away from leaving the EU, although speculation about a delay ranging from two months to two years is growing. Nor is there any clarity on the state of the UKEU relationship after the March 29 deadline. Anything from a long delay or a cancellation to an abrupt “no-deal” crash exit remains possible; this may have changed by lunchtime on the day this article is published.

Many financial firms whose business is affected by Brexit have given up waiting for lawmakers to finalise negotiations over the terms of the split and are pushing ahead with contingency plans. Banks and brokers are setting up new entities in mainland Europe, a process that is fraught with operational risk, particularly given the accelerated timescale for its completion.

Third-party risk from new supplier relationships; legal risk from repapering numerous financial contracts; people risk from hiring and training new personnel; these and other effects of the relocation will put additional strain on the operational resilience of companies.

Particularly in the case of a Brexit with no deal, industry practitioners fear a general increase in stress on almost every aspect of operations. One survey respondent points out: “If you have a hard Brexit, how resilient are your operation processes in terms of new requirements? If you think about it, overnight you go into new tariff regimes. So you have a portfolio with every operational risk you’ve ever seen.”

#10: Mis-selling

Mis-selling drops a few places on this year’s top 10 op risks, a reflection – or perhaps a shared hope among risk managers – that the era of mega-fines for crisis-era misdeeds among US and European banks might finally be over. They would do well to check their optimism, however: as the recent public inquiry into Australia’s financial sector that has excoriated the reputation of the nation’s banks shows, another mis-selling scandal is never far away.

Firms have shelled out a scarcely credible $607 billion in fines for conduct-related misdemeanours since 2010, the bulk of them related to fines and redress over mis-selling claims. 2011 and 2012 saw the heaviest losses, with the bulk of the fines for residential mortgage to payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling concentrated here.

The cumulative impact of fines and settlements has taken a huge toll on bank capital: as a recent Risk Quantum analysis shows, op risk now accounts for a third of risk-weighted assets (RWAs) among the largest US banks, while UK lenders still face hefty Pillar 2 capital top-ups from the Bank of England, largely as a result of legacy conduct issues.

Under the advanced measurement approach to measuring op risk capital which most US banks use, sizeable op risk losses can heavily skew a model’s outputs. But from a capital point of view, there are hopeful signs that with the severity and frequency of losses decreasing, RWAs are starting to see agradual rolldown for most banks – though the US Federal Reserve has privately made clear it will not sign off any more changes to bank op risk models, leaving their methodologies frozen in time.

While Australia’s banks emerged relatively unscathed from the 2008 global financial crisis, they too are now feeling the sting of public ire following a series of mis-selling and conduct-related scandals, the first of which claimed the scalp of Commonwealth Bank Of Australia chief executive Ian Narev last year, dealing a severe blow to the bank’s reputation.

The Royal Commission enquiry it helped spark had far wider ramifications beyond the bank. The fallout is still being felt, with National Australia Bank announcing on February 7 that its chief executive Andrew Thorburn and chairman Ken Henry would both step down.

Source | https://www.risk.net/risk-management/6470126/top-10-op-risks-2019

AirAsia’s Face Recognition System for Flight Boarding Will Be Rolled Out This 2019!

According to Free Malaysia Today, AirAsia Deputy group CEO Aireen Omar recently stated that the low-cost carrier will be implementing a face recognition system for flight boarding in selected airports across Malaysia this year (2019).

AirAsia Deputy group CEO Aireen Omar

A pilot test for this system is currently being carried out at the Senai airport in Johor Bahru which began in February 2018. The system, known as the Fast Airport Clearance Experience System (FACES), is Malaysia’s first airport facial recognition system with self-boarding gates.

FACES is able to identify guests as they approach these automated boarding gates and they can easily board flights without presenting any travel documents.

Speaking about this system when the pilot test was first launched last year, çsaid,

“Airports are typically the worst part of flying. FACES marks our latest effort to make the on-ground experience more seamless and less stressful by using cutting edge biometric technology to authenticate guests.”

“With FACES, your face is your passport, making it a breeze to clear the gate and board your flight.”

Group CEO of AirAsia and Co-Group CEO of AirAsia X Tan Sri Tony Fernandes

“I want to thank Senai International Airport for once again supporting our efforts to improve the travel experience for our guests through digital innovation, as they did when they became the first airport in Malaysia to implement self-service baggage check-in. We hope the success of FACES here will serve as an inspiration and we are keen to work with other airports in Malaysia to revolutionise the way people travel with this technology and make flying enjoyable again.”

Meanwhile, the airline’s deputy group CEO added that after a year of pilot testing, the technology has been refined and improved and that more airports would be selected for the next phase of this project. Well, we’re excited to see this new system being implemented at more airports this year!

SOURCE | https://www.worldofbuzz.com/airasia-face-recognition-system-for-flight-boarding-will-be-rolled-out-this-2019/

Cyber espionage warning: The most advanced hacking groups are getting more ambitious

The top 20 most notorious cyber-espionage operations have increased their activity by a third in recent years – and are looking to conduct more attacks, according to a security company.

The most advanced hacking groups are becoming bolder when conducting campaigns, with the number of organisations targeted by the biggest campaigns rising by almost a third

A combination of new groups emerging and threat actors developing successful strategies for breaking into networks has seen the average number of organisations targeted by the most active hacking groups rise from 42 between 2015 and 2017 to an average of 55 in 2018.

The figures detailed in Symantec’s annual Internet Security Threat Report suggest that the top 20 most prolific hacking groups are targeting more organisations as the attackers gain more confident in their activities.

Groups like Chafer, DragonFly, Gallmaker and others are all conducting highly targeted hacking campaigns as they look to gather intelligence against businesses they think hold valuable information.

Once attackers might have needed the latest zero-days to gain access to corporate networks, but now it’s spear-phishing emails laced with malicious content that are most likely to provide attackers with the initial entry they need.

And because these espionage groups are so proficient at what they do, they have well tried-and-tested means of conducting activity once they’re inside a network.

“It’s like they have steps which they go through, which they know are effective to get into networks, then for lateral movement across networks to get what they want,” Orla Cox, director of Symentec’s security response unit told ZDNet.

“It makes them more efficient and, for organizations, it makes them harder to spot because a lot of the activity looks like traditional enterprise activity,” she added.

In many of the cases detailed in the report, attackers are deploying what Symantec refers to as ‘living-off-the-land’ tactics: the attackers uses everyday enterprise tools to help them travel across corporate networks and steal data, making the campaigns more difficult to discover.

Not only is the number of targeted campaigns on the rise, but there’s a larger variety in the organisations being targeted. Organisations in sectors like utilities, government and financial services have regularly found themselves targets of organised cyber-criminal gangs, but increasingly, these groups are expanding their attacks to new targets.

“Often in the past they’d have a clear focus on one sector, but now we see these campaigns can focus on a wide variety of targets, ranging from telecoms companies, hotels, universities. It’s harder to pinpoint exactly what their end goal is,” said Cox.

While intelligence gathering remains the key goal of many of these campaigns, some are beginning to expand by also displaying an interest in compromising systems.

This is a particularly worrying trend, because while stealing data in itself is bad enough, attackers with the ability to operate cyber-physical systems could be much worse.

One group Symantec has observed conducting this activity is a hacking operation dubbed Thrip, which expressed particular interest in gaining control of satellite operations — something that could potentially cause major disruption.

In the face of a rise in targeted attacks, governments are increasingly pointing the finger not just at nations but individuals believed to be involved in cyber espionage. For example, the United States named individuals it claims are responsible for conducting cyber attacks: they include citizens of Russia, North Korea, Iran and China. Symantec’s report suggests the indictment might disrupt some targeted operations, but it’s unlikely that cyber espionage campaigns will be disappearing anytime soon.

Source | https://www.zdnet.com/article/cyber-espionage-warning-the-most-advanced-hacking-groups-are-getting-more-ambitious/

How smart hospitals are dealing with cybersecurity

The healthcare industry is using technology to improve the work of the sector’s professionals and patients’ lives – but how is it confronting cyber threats?

Is there a difference between going digital and becoming a smart hospital? Apparently, there is.

Dr Milind Sabnis, healthcare director at Frost & Sullivan, explained at the 9th Healthcare Innovation Summit that going digital and generating data is not enough.

Instead, healthcare institutions must be able to make sense of the data and derive actionable results to be successful.

“A smart hospital is a hospital that optimises, redesigns, and builds new clinical processes, management as well as infrastructure to provide a valuable service or an insight which was not there before, and in the process, help achieve better patient care, experience as well as operational efficiency”, he explained.

Senior stakeholders — from regulators, policymakers and healthcare institutions to practitioners and technology providers — agree that the pressure is on to integrate ICT and medical technologies into healthcare services effectively.

In Dr Sabnis’ view, smart hospitals look into three areas of development to reduce operational costs, improve margins, reduce staff burden, increase the recovery rate, and improve satisfaction and experience of the patient.

First, they look at managing logistics more efficiently. Second, they make sure that their staff provides positive patient experiences through clinical excellence. And third, they introduce innovative services and technology initiatives to keep operations patient-centric.

“Whether you like it or not, smart transformation is coming. If you do not prepare for it, do not acclimatise yourself to it, you are going to be extinct,” Dr Sabnis concluded.

Cybersecurity in healthcare

James Woo, CIO of Farrer Park Hospital, emphasised that even smart hospitals today must be future-ready in at least four domains — people, processes, technology and cybersecurity.

Of these, security is among the top concerns.

“Cybersecurity is actually very important. Why? Because even though you have built everything, without that at the end of the day, you have nothing”, explained Woo. “All your people, processes and technologies are not going to work.”

It is a fact: healthcare institutions cannot rely solely on their firewalls to defend against such intrusions. Research has shown that hackers can enter a network and lie dormant for 140 days before detection.

Hence, healthcare institutions are embracing a robust security strategy for protection today and in the future.

Rethinking primary healthcare  

Professor Barbara Starfield, from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, defines primary care as “that level of health service systems that provides entry into the system of all new needs and problems.”

She said it also provides person-focused care over time and care for all unusual conditions and coordinates integrated care given elsewhere.

Simply put, there is much more to do in primary care than just the episodic care usually given to patients.

“In a bigger scheme of things, the way we integrate care within primary care is very important”, affirmed Dr K Thomas Abraham, Advisor at SATA CommHealth. “We need to understand that there could be vertical integration and horizontal integration.”

He said vertical integration involves integration within hospitals or other institutions where care is given while horizontal integration is between practitioners or within the industry.

“I think the future is about how we empower our patients through the use of technology, through the use of different resources that are available for their care”, Dr Abraham said. “Self-care is important; this is how you manage patients and reduce the cost of healthcare and prevent them from being hospitalised.”

How can technology help patients?

A study has shown that socioeconomic factors, as a determinant of health, contribute 40 percent to a person ’s general health and well-being, while clinical care contributes only 10 percent.

This leads healthcare professionals to start looking more closely at patients’ environment as well as individual characteristics and behaviours.

Today, technology also makes it possible to care for patients remotely.  A study conducted by Accenture reveals that virtual care solutions in primary care can generate savings of up to US$10 billion annually for the industry.

However, while mobile health (mHealth) and telehealth solutions undoubtedly raise staff efficiency and reduce the cost of services, it also opens up new paradigms in healthcare.

“Today’s technology has the power to aid the healthcare sector in many ways – integrated care, self-care, social care, and virtual care”, concluded Dr Abraham. “These are not new things to us, but if we put greater effort into finding new ways of advancing these areas, we are definitely going to see better primary care, and it would definitely make better outcomes for our patients too.”

Source | https://www.cio-asia.com/article/3311696/health-care-industry/how-smart-hospitals-are-dealing-with-cybersecurity.html

Malaysia to develop 30 new aerospace manufacturing SMEs by 2020

KUALA LUMPUR: The government targets to develop 30 new manufacturing small and medium enterprise (SME) players in the aerospace sector by 2020, in addition to the current 20 companies.

National Aerospace Industry Coordinating Office (NAICO) Head Shamsul Kamar Abu Samah

National Aerospace Industry Coordinating Office (NAICO) Head Shamsul Kamar Abu Samah said the local aerospace industry’s manufacturing segment had shown tremendous growth since the 1990s and recently surpassed the maintenance, repairs and overhaul (MRO) segment as the top revenue contributor in the aerospace sector.

“Of course, the MRO sector has been providing quite a sum of revenue to Malaysia but at this point of time, manufacturing (segment) is number one. We hope that it (manufacturing) can increase between 7.0 and 15.0 per cent every year, but this will very much depends on how we can bring in more investments.

Shamsul Kamar said about 48 per cent or RM6.6 billion of the aerospace industry’s revenue in 2017 came from the aerospace manufacturing segment, followed by 46 per cent from the MRO segment and the remaining from the engineering and design services segment.

He said US-based General Electric’s decision to invest RM200 million to set up a new high-tech LEAP service centre in Malaysia would result in up to 40 new airlines servicing their engines in Subang airport.

“We hope with the new investment, more engines will be serviced in Subang,” Shamsul told reporters after the launch of the third Kuala Lumpur International Aerospace Business Convention (KLIABC) here today.

International Trade and Industry Minister Darell Leiking
The launch was officiated by International Trade and Industry Minister Darell Leiking.Shamsul Kamar said that NAICO, a unit under the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), will work with SMEs to ensure their long-term engagement in the aerospace industry.
“MITI through its agencies like the Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE), Malaysia Investment Development Authority and SME Corporation (SME Corp), will provide grants to assist the SMEs in the aerospace industry.

“These grants, however, only cover about 50 per cent of any investments needed as we want to see the (same) commitment from industry players and to determine if they really want to invest in this segment,” he added.

Meanwhile, Darell said the Malaysia Aerospace Blueprint 2030 targetted an annual revenue of US$14.3 billion or RM55.2 billion by 2030 and the creation of more than 32,000 high-income jobs.
“Malaysia is at the forefront of various activities in the aerospace value chain. Our companies cover engineering and design services, system integration, and the manufacture of aircraft parts and components including ground support equipment and MRO activities.

“SMEs involvement in the industry is also encouraging. The 20 SMEs under the SME Corp’s Global Aerospace Manufacturing Industry Programme have shown positive growth and are expected to generate more than RM30 million this year,” he said.

In 2017, Malaysia’s aerospace export surged 54 per cent to RM8.51 billion from 2016, with main exports being parts and components, particularly for wings, empennage and aircraft fuselage.
The three-day KLIABC which begins today is organised by MATRADE in collaboration with Malaysia Aerospace Industry Association (MAIA) and ABE France, and will see the participation of 150 aerospace industry organisations from 21 countries. – Bernama

Hacker group threatens to leak 9/11 ‘truth’ unless paid in bitcoin

The Dark Overlord hacker group has threatened to leak thousands of “secret” documents stolen from insurers and government agencies that they claim reveal the truth about 9/11 – unless they’re paid not to.

The Dark Overlord, a “professional adversarial threat group” known for their hacks of Netflix, plastic surgery clinics, and other sensitive targets, posted a link to a 10GB encrypted archive of documents related to 9/11 litigation, promising to release the encryption keys if their demands were not met in a post on Pastebin on Monday.

The group claims the documents tell the story of what really happened on one of the most notorious dates in recent history, tweeting “We’ll be providing many answers about 9.11 conspiracies through our 18,000 secret documents leak.” They published a “teaser” consisting of letters, emails, and various documents that mention law firms, the Transport Security Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration, with a promise of more to come.

It’s not just insurance litigation that we have, it’s CONFIDENTIAL, CLASSIFIED, and SECRET documents from FAA, FBI, TSA, USDOJ, and others.

https://twitter.com/tdo_h4ck3rs/status/1080216025541554181/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1080216025541554181&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F447909-hackers-threaten-911-truth%2F

They claim to have hacked documents from not only major global insurers like Lloyds of London and Hiscox, but also Silverstein Properties, which owned the World Trade Center complex, and various government agencies. The material, which supposedly includes confidential government documents that were meant to be destroyed but were instead retained by legal firms, allegedly reveals “the truth about one of the most recognizable incidents in recent history and one which is shrouded in mystery with little transparency and not many answers.”

Anyone worried they might be named in the documents can have their names redacted – for a fee, according to the announcement. “Terrorist organizations” and “competing nation states of the USA” are also offered first dibs on the info – if they pay up. Otherwise, the hackers write, the insurers can pay an unspecified bitcoin ransom – or “we’re going to bury you with this.”

Some of the documents were nabbed in an April hack of a law firm associated with Hiscox that the firm acknowledgescould have exposed 1,500 of its US commercial policyholders. The Dark Overlord claims that while their ransom was paid in relation to that earlier hack, their victim violated the “agreement” by cooperating with law enforcement, necessitating further extortion.

Hacker holding laptop with bitcoin icons on the screen. Finance and technology concept

The group emerged in 2016 with hacks on medical centers, advertising sensitive data for sale on the dark web in order to force victims to pay for its removal. They infamously leaked an entire season of Netflix’s Orange is the New Black last year to prove to that company they meant business and have stolen data from more than 50 companies, according to Vice.

Source | https://www.rt.com/usa/447909-hackers-threaten-911-truth/