IBM: Organized Cybercrime Threat

How Open Security Outpaces Cybercrime

To combat the increasingly organized cybercrime threat, we’ve built an open security platform that helps the world fight the bad guys.

 

Cybercrime Pays, Which is Why it’s Becoming Organized
Cybercrime has rapidly moved from the world of small-stakes theft to become one of the most profitable types of crime in the world.

Seeing the enormous opportunity in everything from identity theft to large-scale corporate incursions, hackers are banding together to run much larger attacks, similar to traditional crime rings.

80% of cyber-attacks are driven by criminal organizations, in which data, tools and expertise are widely shared.

Moats are Not Keeping the Intruders Out
Years ago, in the world of local networks, enterprises were able to focus attention and resources on protecting their own security “endpoints.” If threats couldn’t pierce the perimeter, critical data would remain safe. Now, enabled by a combination of ubiquitous connectivity, data availability, open networks and the growing Internet of Things, hackers are storming the castles in waves. In fact, they’re already inside—the average security breach isn’t discovered for months. What’s needed is not a moat, but an intelligent immune system that detects anomalies and marshals rapid response. And most in-house cybersecurity teams are stuck piecing together multiple sources of intelligence to try to keep up.

Organized Threats Require a Coordinated Response
Recognizing the increasing dangers posed by hackers—both freelance and organized—we opened up our own global network of cyberthreat research and invited the industry to share intelligence—creating an entirely new approach to fight the threat.

In April 2015 we opened the IBM X-Force Exchange, a 700-terabyte threat database that includes two decades of malicious cyber-attack data from IBM, as well as anonymous threat data from the thousands of organizations for which IBM manages security operations. Already, more than 2,000 organizations across 16 global industries are active on the platform, including:

  • 5 of the 10 largest banks in the world
  • 6 of the top 10 retailers
  • 6 of the top 10 automakers
  • 3 of the top 10 healthcare providers

Expanding on our open approach to security, we also launched the IBM Security App Exchange, allowing partners, vendors and customers to share and build applications, security app extensions and enhancements to IBM Security products.

****  Ever wonder how cyberattacks and malware are created, and how they get into your system to steal your data? See the life of a cyberthreat first hand, from the moment of its inception within the Dark Web of hackers, to when it is sent around the world to infect as many systems as possible. With collaboration across the networks of “the good guys,” we can help stop these exploits from being shared and spread. Similar to how vaccinations and health warnings can help to stop a disease pandemic, having the right protocols in place can help send malware back to the Dark Web for good.

Join the fight against hackers at http://bit.ly/1IrvwLu

And Then N. Korea Fired off 2 More Missiles

But while Barack Obama dispatched Michelle to attend Nancy Reagan’s funeral memorial, he is going to a music festival.

North Korea Fires More Missiles into the Sea

VoA: South Korea’s military says North Korea has fired two short-range ballistic missiles into the sea, apparently a response to continuing military exercises by South Korea and the United States.

The South Korean Defense Ministry says the missiles were fired early Thursday morning from North Hwanghae Province. They traveled about 500 kilometers and fell into the water off the country’s east coast, officials in Seoul said.

Such firings are not uncommon when animosity rises on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea hates the massive military drills by Seoul and Washington, calling them a preparation for invasion.

Pyongyang also is angry about tough United Nations sanctions imposed following its recent nuclear test and long-range rocket launch.

North Korea has a large stockpile of short-range missiles and is developing long-range and intercontinental missiles.

The North fired six rockets into the sea last week, supervised by leader Kim Jong Un, who ordered his military to be prepared to launch pre-emptive attacks against its enemies.

On Wednesday, Kim said his country has miniaturized nuclear warheads to mount on ballistic missiles.

The U.S. State Department declined to comment.

****

Meanwhile Special Operations Command General Votel did comment:

NUMBER OF US SPECIAL FORCES ON KOREAN PENINSULA REACHES ALL TIME HIGH

US Special Operations Command General Joseph Votel stated that United States has increased the number of Special Operations Forces (SOF) on the Korean Peninsula in the past year-and-a-half to their highest level.

The United States has increased the number of Special Operations Forces (SOF) on the Korean Peninsula in the past year-and-a-half to their highest level, US Special Operations Command General Joseph Votel told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

“I am pretty proud to say, right now, today there are more SOF men and woman on the [Korean] Peninsula than we have had any time in the past,” Votel stated.

In the past two months, North Korea has engaged in multiple long-range rocket launches and a nuclear weapons test, raising concerns in the United States and among members of the international community.

Votel noted that the Special Operations Forces presence on the Korean Peninsula has increased over the past 18 months in partnership with South Korean forces.

The United States and South Korea just launched their largest ever military exercises in the region this week.

North Korea has argued the yearly exercises posed a threat to its interests, and announced last week that it had put its nuclear weapons on high alert, ready to carry out a preemptive nuclear strike.

Then Reuters has an additional report on North Korea’s newest nuclear weapons:

N.Korea’s Kim says country has miniaturized nuclear warhead

SEOUL, March 9 (Reuters) – North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said the country has miniaturized nuclear warheads to be mounted on ballistic missiles, the North’s KCNA news agency reported on Wednesday.

“The nuclear warheads have been standardized to be fit for ballistic missiles by miniaturizing them,” KCNA quoted him as saying as he inspected the work of nuclear workers, adding “this can be called true nuclear deterrent.”

The comments were Kim’s first direct mention of the claim previously made repeatedly in the country’s state media to have successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead to be mounted on a ballistic missile, which is widely questioned.

Kim also inspected the nuclear warheads designed for thermo-nuclear reaction, KCNA said, referring to a hydrogen bomb that the country claimed to have tested in January.

North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6 and claimed it was a successful hydrogen bomb test, which was disputed by many experts and the governments of South Korea and the United States.

The U.N. Security Council imposed harsh new sanctions on the isolated state last week for the nuclear test, and Pyongyang has stepped up its belligerent rhetoric through state media.

Last week Kim ordered his country to be ready to use nuclear weapons at any time in the face of growing threats from enemies.

Operating Military Drone Flights over U.S.

Pentagon admits operating military drone flights over U.S.

WashingtonTimes: The Pentagon has deployed spy drones to fly over U.S. territory for non-military missions over the past decade, but the flights were few and lawful, according to a new report.

The domestic drone flights have occurred less than 20 times between 2006 and 2015 and were always conducted in compliance with existing laws, according to the report by the Pentagon Inspector General which was made public under a Freedom of Information Act request, according to USA today.

The Pentagon did not provide details of the domestic spy missions, but said it takes the issue of military drone flights over America soil “very seriously.”

The list of domestic drone operations was not made public in the report, but some examples were cited.

In one case, an unnamed mayor asked the Marine Corps to use a drone to identify potholes in the mayor’s city. The Marines denied the request because obtaining the required approval from the defense secretary to “conduct a UAS mission of this type did not make operational sense.”

The issue of unmanned aerial surveillance drone flights over the U.S. first arose in 2013 when then-FBI director Robery Mueller told a Congressional committee that the bureau employed spy drones to aid in investigations, but in a “very, very minimal way, very seldom.”

According to the report, which was completed in March 2015, the Pentagon established guidance in 2006 governing when and whether drones could be used domestically.

The interim policy allowed spy drones to be used for homeland defense purposes and to assists civil authorities.

However, the policy said that any use of military spy drones for civilian authorities must be cleared by the Secretary of Defense or someone delegated by the secretary. The report found that the defense secretaries never delegated that responsibility, according to USA Today.

 Truthseeker/UK

But the desire for domestic drone operations is growing, according to the report. Military units that operate the drones told inspectors that they would like more opportunities to fly them on domestic missions, even just to give pilots more experience.

Shortly before the report was completed a year ago, the Pentagon issued a new policy on the use of spy drones requiring the defense secretary to approve all domestic drone operations.

Unless permitted by law and approved by the secretary, drones “may not conduct surveillance on U.S. persons,” under the new policy.

**** Is it is nefarious? Very doubtful:

Plotted out all the information we’ve (Electronic Frontier Foundation) received about applications to fly domestic drones on our Map of Domestic Drone Authorizations. (Clicking this link will serve content from Google.)

US Federal Agencies:

 

Yikes, the IMF is Sounding the Alarm

Deja Vu? Imagine what a new president of the United States is about to inherit? Terrifying…

The IMF Is Sounding the Alarm. Is Anyone Listening?

WSJ: The International Monetary Fund is sounding louder and louder alarms about the state of the global economy. The problem is, few major economies seem to be hearing them.

“The IMF’s latest reading of the global economy shows once again a weakening baseline,” the fund’s No. 2 official, David Lipton, warned Tuesday in a speech to the National Association for Business Economics.

While the world economy is still expanding, he said, “we are clearly at a delicate juncture, where risk of economic derailment has grown.”

The IMF alerted finance ministers and central bank governors from the Group of 20 largest economies gathered in Shanghai late last month, signaling it would likely downgrade its outlook for the global economy in April.

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said a coordinated effort was needed, urging governments with room in their budgets to ramp up spending and all countries to accelerate delivery of long-promised economic overhauls.

Unlike the G-20’s massive joint-stimulus effort in 2009 to combat the financial meltdown wreaking havoc across the globe, IMF members are at odds about the severity of the problem and how to fix it.

“We are strictly against announcing publicly that the G-20 is preparing a stimulus program,” German officials privately told other countries as the group drafted its joint communiqué.

The IMF fears such an attitude risks jeopardizing the global economic expansion.

Mr. Lipton, at his speech Tuesday, cited a World War II-era quote by Winston Churchill: “I never worry about action, but only inaction.”

Part of the problem is a growing concern that policy makers are running out of ammunition or have lost the resolve to deploy growth-reviving measures.

“For the sake of the global economy, it is imperative that advanced and developing countries dispel this dangerous notion by reviving the bold spirit of action and cooperation that characterized the early years of the recovery effort,” Mr. Lipton said.

The IMF calls come as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said leading indicators already suggest global growth will slow in the coming months. And the Bank for International Settlements cautioned against diminishing returns for central banks as they keep pushing easy-money policies to boost growth, including “great uncertainty” about navigating deeper into uncharted waters of negative interest rates.

There are few signs policy makers are shifting into higher gear. “There’s a great deal of economic uncertainty in the world, but there’s not a crisis and it would not be reasonable to expect a crisis response,” a senior U.S. Treasury official said during the recent meeting.

While the IMF is pushing the G-20 to boost spending, it is not a call to do so at the expense of monetary policy. The fund has long pushed the Federal Reserve to delay its planned rate increases and asked the European Central Bank to rev up its stimulus efforts.

Mr. Lipton worries premature withdrawal of central bank support could pitch the global economy into a deflationary death trap.

Then, “vicious and self-reinforcing dynamics” would plague the world in the form of higher real interest rates, falling output, building debt and higher unemployment, he said.  Such effects are “notoriously difficult to combat once they become entrenched.”

If recent history is any guide, the IMF may once again have to turn its downside scenario for the global economy into its baseline.

 
****
This was also the major topic at DAVOS in January.
Fear, Uncertainty Causing Market Chaos and Davos Isn’t Helping

The trouble with the World Economic Forum is that it has a propensity to become something of an echo chamber. Rather than promoting a plurality of different views, ideas and sentiments, the mood tends to get focused on a single, self-reinforcing consensus which is endlessly repeated and passed around, as if trending on social media. So it is with financial panics, which have an unnerving tendency to coincide with the annual conference in Davos. I’ve seen it happen on a number of occasions, most memorably in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, when the sense of fear for the future among financiers and policymakers was palpable.

It happened again in early 2009, in the depths of the banking crisis, when an end-of-days mentality hung over the conference. Somehow or the other, Davos amplifies these panics rather than calming them. This year threatens to be little different. Nobody here knows quite what to make of the latest stock market sell-off, and that, indeed, is part of the problem, for uncertainty breeds fear of loss and can easily degenerate into a collective dash for the exit. The danger is that we talk ourselves into something a good deal more serious than it should be.

There is no particular trigger for the latest panic. Most of, if not all, the concerns that underlie it have been with us for some time now — the apparent incompetence of once omnipotent Chinese policymakers in the face of a slowing economy, the collapsing oil price and the growing sense of geo-political instability that accompanies it. As for the rise in American interest rates, that happened a month ago, and had been widely signalled by the Federal Reserve for more than a year beforehand. Yet it is only now that this slight tweak to monetary policy has transmogrified in the eyes of investors from a benign and well-flagged response to an accelerating US economy into a grievous policy mistake that threatens to destabilise the world economy.

So what are we dealing with here; a long-overdue adjustment to asset prices unduly inflated by years of central bank money-printing, or a signal of tough times ahead for the real economy? It’s not hard to make the case for financial Armageddon; certainly, there are plenty of people here only too willing to imagine the worst. Start with the plunging oil price, which ought to be positive for the big consumer economies of the West — given that it puts more money in people’s pockets for spending on other things.

One worry, though, is that it is already causing such a hiatus in oil industry investment that today’s glut will in short order turn to famine, causing the price to surge anew. Back in the late Nineties, the Economist ran a cover on why the oil price would remain at $5 a barrel “for ever”. But as everyone knows, nothing is for ever and little more than 10 years later, it had risen to nearly $150.

The same cycle is being repeated today, with investment cut to a level that, in the long term, will leave supply more than a third lower than present demand. Markets are now anticipating the cooling effect of these higher prices to come. Another worry is that the low oil price will end up bankrupting Saudi Arabia, causing further chaos in an unstable region. Isil taking control of some of the world’s biggest oil reserves scarcely bears thinking about.

Meanwhile, a strong dollar in combination with collapsing commodity prices is threatening a wave of corporate bankruptcies in a world awash with dollar debt. To this list of woes must be added continued worries over China’s transition from to a consumer-led economy. Since the financial crisis, China has been the key source of growth in an otherwise stagnant global economy, but now this progress seems to have stalled. Stories abound of extreme unhappiness within the notoriously secretive Chinese high command. There is even talk of attempted coups. These scenarios may seem far-fetched, but what is undeniable is that all these concerns play into a world of extreme flux. Investors may crave stability and predictability. But for now, these are in lamentably short supply.

Whistleblowers, Watch Your Back

This tells me it is official cover for Hillary. What are your thoughts?

U.S. Government Seeking New Top Secret Classification Czar

FreeBeacon: The Obama administration is seeking to hire a new information security director who will be responsible for overseeing the classification and declassification on all sensitive U.S. government information, according to a posting on the government’s jobs website.

The administration wants to fill the post of director in the National Archive’s Information Security Oversight Office. The previous director, John Fitzpatrick, left the job in January.

The director holds one of the most powerful and sensitive national security jobs in the U.S. government. The official has authority over many classification and declassification matters, meaning that he or she could potentially remove classification if it is deemed in violation of policies.

The post is not subject to confirmation by Congress.

The new director can make up to $185,000 a year.

***** Implications already realized?

 

Intel Whistle-Blowers Fear Government Won’t Protect Them

By

Bloomberg: Nearly three years after Edward Snowden bypassed the intelligence community’s own process for reporting wrongdoing and leaked troves of classified documents to Glenn Greenwald, the system for protecting whistle-blowers inside the national security state remains broken.

This is the view of current and former intelligence officials, national security lawyers and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Their message is simple: Whistle-blowers are often too intimidated to take their case to the inspectors general and Congress.

“There is a systemic problem with the whistle-blower process,” Representative Devin Nunes told me. “There is no easy way for them to come forward that doesn’t jeopardize their careers, across the whole defense and intelligence community enterprise.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has in the past two years tried to address this problem, with mixed results at best. Dan Meyer, the executive director of the Intelligence Community’s Whistle-Blowing & Source Protection program, said in a statement that more whistle-blowers were coming forward in the last two years since the intelligence community began implementing a 2012 executive order from President Barack Obama that gave them additional protections. He said his office was also doing more, for example, to educate agencies on the new law and regulation.

Meyer conceded, however, there were holes in the process. “Protections are imperfect given their differences, the most notable being the lack of equivalent laws protecting intelligence community contractors from reprisal actions by the private companies employing them,” he said. He also acknowledged: “There will likely be some reluctance on the part of whistle-blowers to come forward. In our experience, this is understandably a very emotional event in someone’s career given what’s at stake.”

Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer who has represented dozens of whistle-blowers over the last two decades, went further. “I have not seen any noticeable improvement in the ability of a national security whistle-blower to come forward and be confident they will be protected,” he told me.

Snowden himself has said that he went to the press because of the experience of whistle-blowers before him. Specifically, he has talked about Thomas Drake, a former official at the National Security Agency. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Drake tried to warn his superiors and other oversight bodies of what he saw as a wasteful and illegal NSA program, known as “Trailblazer,” to collect personal data from digital networks.

For Drake, the system didn’t work. Out of frustration, he eventually leaked what he has says was unclassified information about the program to the Baltimore Sun. The Justice Department prosecuted him in 2010, but dropped his case the following year. His career was ruined.

A staff member on the House Intelligence Committee who took Drake seriously, Diane Rourke, soon found she too was under investigation. She told me that because of her interest in Drake’s complaints, and lobbying within the system on his behalf, the Justice Department and eventually her own committee put her under the microscope.

“They wanted to ruin our lives and make an example out of us to anyone else in the intelligence community,” she told me, even though she said she never took Drake’s complaints to the press.

Speaking anonymously, other U.S. intelligence officials told me analysts often face milder forms of intimidation if they are suspected of talking to Congress. This includes threats to suspend one’s security clearance, or being deliberately kept out of loop on important programs.

At issue is anonymity. The inspector general for the intelligence community is required by law to tell the Office of the Director of National Intelligence the identities of whistle-blowers that seek to speak with Congress. The DNI office has also bolstered its monitoring of intelligence professionals and their browsing habits on classified computer systems since the first mass disclosures by WikiLeaks in 2010.

Congress and others have adjusted. Nunes told me he has found creative ways for intelligence professionals to get him information. One was through an annual survey provided to intelligence analysts on the integrity of their product.

At a hearing last month Nunes disclosed that 40 percent of analysts at U.S. Central Command, or CentCom, who responded to the survey complained their reports on the Islamic State were skewed by higher-ups to make the U.S.-led campaign seem more effective than it really was. (The Pentagon’s acting inspector general, Glenn Fine, is also looking into these claims).

Nunes said analysts filled out extensive comments in response to the survey describing how their work was politicized, with the intention of getting them to the committee. Yet Nunes is still trying to get those in-depth comments from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

While some analysts at Central Command have gone directly to the inspector general at the Pentagon (who declined to comment for this column), Nunes said there were many more at CentCom who did not want to risk potential retribution and file a formal complaint.

Nunes also said intelligence officials who have helped his investigation into cost-padding for the construction of a new Joint Intelligence Analysis Center in Europe have been too intimidated to go through the formal whistle-blower process.

It’s understandable that lawmakers like Nunes would raise concerns about weak protections for whistle-blowers. His committee is supposed to perform oversight, even though his predecessors have not made this an issue.

But fixing the system is also in the interest of the national security state itself. In the last five years, the intelligence community has invested great resources to protect its secrets from the next mega-leaker. But if whistle-blowers inside the system see no recourse to address legitimate grievances, then the intelligence community should brace itself for more Snowdens.